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

2023 Supreme(All) 1994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Salil Kumar Rai, Surendra Singh-I, JJ.
Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Agarwal Construction Company - Respondent
Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Defective No. 591 of 2023
Decided On : 15-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Krishna Mohan Asthana
For the Respondent: Praveen Kumar Singh

IMPORTANT POINT
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 reliance on counsel's advice.

Headnote:

Delay - Arbitration Appeal - Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court interpreted the limitation periods under both Acts, concluding that the 60-day limit under the Commercial Courts Act applies, but allowed delay condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to counsel's misadvice.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed an appeal against a Commercial Court's order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, claiming the appeal was timely based on a 90-day limitation period, while the respondents argued for a 60-day limit under the Commercial Courts Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the applicant's counsel providing incorrect legal advice regarding the limitation period, thus justifying the application for condonation of delay.

Issues: Whether the limitation for filing an arbitration appeal is governed by the Commercial Courts Act or the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and if the delay can be condoned under the Limitation Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 60-day limitation under the Commercial Courts Act applies, but allowed the delay due to the applicant's reliance on erroneous legal advice, invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Result: The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2023

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.-Heard Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant on the delay condonation application filed alongwith arbitration appeal.

2. The arguments on the delay condonation application have been heard without calling for a counter-affidavit to the delay condonation application in view of the fact that the counsel for the defendant had agreed to argue the delay condonation application without a counter-affidavit as only a question of law was involved as to whether the limitation for filing the arbitration appeal would be counted as provided under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 or as provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and whether this Court in either case has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

3. The applicant-appellant has preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 11.7.2023, formal order dated 14.7.2021 passed in Case No. 16 of 2021 (Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority through its Vice Chairman v. M/s. Agrawal Construction) filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.

4. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicant/petitioner that the applicant/petitioner had preferred an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act of 1996'') for setting aside the arbitral award within limitation period of 90 days prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1996. Since the valuation of the arbitral award was more than Rs. 3,00,000/- the said application of the petitioner/applicant for setting aside the arbitral award was transferred to the Commercial Court No. 1 Agra hearing jurisdiction in accordance with Section 10 (3) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the '' Act of 2015''). The application was rejected vide order dated 14.7.2023 of the aforesaid Commercial Court, thereafter, applicant/petitioner preferred Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 challenging the judgment and order dated 14.7.2023 passed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

5. It has also been submitted that no limitation period has been provided for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 whereas, office has reported a delay of 29-30 days in filing the Arbitration Appeal in reference to Section 13 (1) (A) of the Act of 2015. It has further been submitted that the applicant/petitioner preferred the appeal on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in N.V. International v. State of Aassam and another, (2020)2 SCC 109, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that limitation period for preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Act 1996 to the High Court is 90 days as Article 116-117 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act is applicable in filing the appeal. It has been submitted that the applicant/petitioner preferred the appeal on the basis of bona fide and legal advice of his Counsel and there was no negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide on his part in filing the appeal after limitation period, therefore, the applicant/petitioner may be granted benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

6. No written objection has been filed by the opposite parties/respondents.

7. It has been submitted by counsel for the respondents that since the valuation of the arbitral award was more than Rs. 3,00,000/- therefore, it was sent to the Commercial Court, Agra for disposal, thus, the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is applicable in deciding the period of limitation for preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. Under Section 13 (1) of the Act of 2015, the period of limitation in preferring such appeal before the High Court against the order of Commercial Court is 60 days from the date of the judgment and order as the purpose of Commercial Court is expeditious dispos

            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