IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Nirankar Dutt Tyagi and Another – Appellants
Versus
N.H.I. Unit Dehradun and Another – Respondents
Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. 593 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024
DELAY - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - Section 34, Section 37, Limitation Act, Section 5, Commercial Courts Act, Section 13(1A) - The court discussed the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Sections 34 and 37, in relation to the Limitation Act and the Commercial Courts Act. It emphasized that appeals under Section 37 must be filed within 60 days, with a possible grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court interpreted that delays beyond these periods are not to be condoned unless a strong case is made, highlighting the importance of timely resolution of disputes as intended by the legislation.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants/appellants filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after a delay of 393 days in challenging an order passed under Section 34 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was inordinate and not justified. The reasons provided for the delay were deemed insufficient, and the court reiterated the established legal principles regarding the condonation of delay in appeals under the Arbitration Act.
Issues: Whether the delay of 393 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be condoned, and if the reasons provided for the delay are sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the law of limitation is strict and that delays beyond the prescribed periods can only be condoned in exceptional circumstances where sufficient cause is shown. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the appellants to demonstrate compelling reasons for the delay.
Final Decision: The delay condonation application was rejected, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation.
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024
1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/appellants and Mr. Pranjal Mehrotra with Mr. Ashish Kumar Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arising out of an order passed under Section 34 of the Act.
3. There is an inordinate delay of 393 days in filing this appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
4. In M/s N.V. International v. State of Asam and others, 2020 (2) SCC 109 [Coram: Rohinton Fali Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.] and Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 460 [Coram: Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R. Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.] the Supreme Court has stated that such a delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act cannot be allowed.
5. The issue with regard to filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by the Supreme Court. One may rely on the judgment in M/s N.V. International (Supra), the relevant paragraph thereof is delineated below:
6. Furthermore, paragraph 61 of the judgment in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer (Supra) is required to be looked into. The said paragraph is delineated below:
7. A coordinate Bench of this Court in National Highway Authority of India Vs. Smt. Sampata Devi and others, 2023 (12) ADJ 787 [Coram: Om Prakash Shukla, J.] in similar facts and circumstances, discussed in great detail a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court and has come to the following conclusion:
(45) Further, Section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to the appeals filed under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and in holding the said applicability, the Apex Court noted with affirmative that Section 13(1A) of the C
The court established that delays in appeals under the Arbitration Act are to be strictly limited, with condonation only in exceptional circumstances where compelling reasons are provided.
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 time....
The court emphasized that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration Act must be justified by sufficient cause, with negligence being insufficient for condonation.
Delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can only be condoned in exceptional cases where the party has acted bona fide and not negligently.
The court emphasized the strict timelines prescribed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Limitation Act, and held that delays beyond the statutory periods cannot be condoned.
The court established that the limitation period for appeals under the Arbitration Act is 60 days as per the Commercial Courts Act, but delays can be condoned based on sufficient cause, including rel....
Timely filing of appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is crucial; bureaucratic delays are inadequate reasons for condoning significant delays.
The court emphasized that appeals under the Arbitration Act must adhere to strict timelines, and administrative delays do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
The Court held that the 60-day limitation for appeals under the Arbitration Act is strict and can only be extended in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, which was not establish....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.