SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(All) 776

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Pankaj Dubey, Santosh Kumar Srivastava.
For the Respondent: Pranjal Mehrotra.

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed within 60 days, with a grace period of 30 days, and that delays beyond this period are not to be condoned without compelling reasons.

Headnote:

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:

    “4. We may only add that what we have done in the aforesaid judgment is to add to the period of 90 days, which is provided by statute for filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by following Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others (supra), as also having regard to the object of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes which was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the 1996 Act, and which has been strengthened from time to time by amendments made thereto. The present delay being beyond 120 days is not liable, therefore, to be condoned.”

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:

    “61. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches.”

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:

    “(44) In view of the authoritative Judgments of the Apex Court in M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors (supra), it must be held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be filed within 60 days from the date of the order as per Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, in those rare cases where the specified value is for a sum less than INR 3,00,000.00 then the appeal under Section 37 would be governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act, as the case may be.

(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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top