IMPORTANT POINT
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict and cannot be extended beyond 120 days, emphasizing the need for timely resolution in arbitration proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. This is an application under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) preferred against the order dated August 1, 2012 passed by the District Judge, Agra.

FACTS

2. I have laid down the factual matrix of the instant lis below:

a. An agreement was entered into by the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Appellant No. 1’) and M/s Harish Chandra India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) for ‘excavation of foundation of supporting structures of second stage pump house of Chambal Dal Project, Pinahat Agra’.

b. Disputes and differences arose between the parties in relation to the aforesaid agreement which were referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator gave an award of Rs. 67,42,240/-in favour of the Respondent on July 19, 2009. If the award remained unpaid beyond four months from the date of delivery of the award, the same was to carry simple interest @ 16% from the date of award to the date of actual payment.

c. On May 17, 2010, the Appellants filed an application under Section 34 of the Act challenging the aforesaid award dated July 19, 2009 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Limitation Act’).

d. The District Judge, Agra vide order dated August 1, 2012 rejected the application filed by the Appellants under Section 5 read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act along with the application under Section 34 of the Act.

e. Aggrieved by the order dated August 1, 2012, the Appellants have preferred the instant appeal under Section 37 of the Act before this Court on March 13, 2013.

CONTENTIONS BY THE APPELLANTS

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants has made the following submissions before this Court:

a. Delay if any is beyond the control and is procedural in natural. The delay is not deliberate and intentional and is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice.

b. In the facts and circumstances, it is therefore necessary in the interest of justice that this Court may be pleased to condone the delay filing the instant appeal before this Court and treat the same within time.

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record.

5. It is evident from the factual matrix of the instant appeal that the same has been filed with a delay of more than 120 days. The impugned order was passed on August 1, 2012 while the instant appeal has been filed on March 13, 2013 that is beyond the period of 120 days.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.V. International v. State of Assam reported in (2020) 2 SCC 109 espoused on the period of limitation for filing of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:

“3. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, we may observe that the matter is no longer res integra. In Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111, this Court, by its judgment and order dated 17-9-2018 [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111] held thus:

“1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By a judgment dated 19-4-2018 in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 794, this Court has in near identical facts and circumstances allowed the appeal of the Union of India in a proceeding arising from an arbitral award.

3. Ordinarily, we would have applied the said judgment to this case as well. However, we find that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 10-4-2013 [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6511] has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India on the ground of delay. The delay was found to be 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal. One of the important points made by the Division Bench is that, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause made ou