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.

JUDGMENT :

(Per : Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

Order on C.M. Application No.IA/1/2025 : Application for Condonation of Delay

(1) Heard Shri Tushar Verma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Abhinav Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the respondents on the present application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal,

Introduction

(2) The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, interdicting the judgment and order dated 07.09.2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court No.1, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No. 08 of 2023 : The Project Director, UPHSDP, Lucknow & Ors. Vs. M/s Maruti Construction) as well as Arbitral Award dated 31.01.2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator.

(3) The application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Arbitral Award dated 31.01.2021, has been dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

Order on Practise Directions

(4) Before proceeding to adjudicate the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal, it is pertinent to note the growing trend of impleading the Civil Court and/or the Tribunals as a respondent in an appeal or writs, wherein the order passed by the said Civil Court or the Tribunal is impugned therewith. While the said issue seems to have been decided 25 years ago by the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the recent spurt in arraying the Civil Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, through its Presiding Officer, enjoins upon this Court a bounden duty to reiterate the settled law. Having said so, it must be understood that Courts/Tribunals, in this country when act in judicial capacity enjoy certain kind of immunity from being prosecuted and sued as a Court in their individual or personal capacity, with exceptions like allegations of mala fide, partiality, bias etc. against that particular Presiding Officer of the Court/Tribunal, which needs to meet a higher degree of threshold, before the same are alleged. We find that these Civil Courts/Tribunals cannot be made a party in any proceeding wherein they have decided the matter, as these decisions are subject to rectification by the appellate or revisional Court in a judicial proceeding. This view of ours is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur and others : AIR 1999 SC 976 , which still holds the ground and reads in the conclusion part as follows :-

“Before parting with this case it is necessary for us to point out one aspect of the matter which is rather disturbing. In the writ petition filed in the High Court as well as the Special Leave Petition filed in this Court, the District Judge, Gorakhpur and the 4th Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gorakhpur are shown as respondents and in the Special Leave Petition they are shown as contesting respondents. There was no necessity for impleading the judicial officers who disposed of the matter in a civil proceeding when the writ petition was filed in the High Court; nor is there any justification for impleading them as parties in the Special Leave Petition and describing them as contesting respondents. We do not approve of the course adopted by the petitioner which would cause unnecessary disturbance to the functions of the concerned judicial officers. They cannot be in any way equated to the officials of the Governm