Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSALI, CJ. VIKAS BUDHWAR,J.
The State Of Up And Another – Appellant
Versus
Virendra Giri – Respondent
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 37 of 2025
Decided on : 24-01-2025
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Delay Condonation Application - Appeal against the order of the Commercial Court rejecting application under Section 34 for setting aside of the award - Delay in filing appeal deemed unintentional but not sufficiently explained - Court emphasizes the need for diligence in filing appeals - Delay condonation application rejected due to lack of bona fides and insufficient grounds. (Paras 1, 13, 19, 21)
(B) Legal Principles - The law of limitation binds all parties, including the Government - A liberal approach to condonation of delay is not a blanket waiver of limitation - Sufficient cause must be shown for delays beyond statutory periods. (Paras 15, 22)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, questioning the rejection of an application under Section 34 for setting aside an arbitral award. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to procedural formalities and lack of diligence by the appellants. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the explanation for delay to be routine and lacking in diligence, leading to the rejection of the delay condonation application. (Paras 19, 21)
Issues: The main issues included whether the delay in filing the appeal was adequately explained and the implications of the Government's procedural delays on the right to appeal. (Paras 13, 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the explanation for delay was insufficient and highlighted the need for promptness and diligence in legal proceedings, especially involving public funds. (Paras 19, 21)
Result: Delay condonation application rejected.
In Re: Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025
1. The present appeal purported to be under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act of 1996') has been preferred along with a delay condonation application supported by affidavit for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal questioning the order of the Commercial Court, Meerut rejecting the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of the award.
2. A chart recapitulating the details of the cases is being quoted hereinunder:-
| Arbitration Appeal No. | Number of Arbitratio n Case | Date of Award | Amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in INR | Date of decision of Section 34 under 1996 Act | Date of presentation of appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act | Valuation of the Appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 in INR | Period of delay in preferring appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act in days |
| 37 of 2025 | 156/2022 | 30.11.2019 | 4341843/- (with interest) | 22.2.2024 | 20.01.2025 | 83,32,643.00 | 257 |
3. Sri Rajiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the appellants on the strength of the averments contained in the delay condonation application submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is unintentional, bona fide and due to procedural formalities and since the award itself is illegal, thus, this Court may condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits.
4. We have heard Sri Rajiv Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and perused the material available on record.
5. Record reveals that the Arbitrator had pronounced the award on 30.11.2019, an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was preferred by the appellants, which came to be rejected by the Commercial Court, Meerut on 22.02.2024. As per the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application, a copy of the award dated 22.02.2024 passed in Arbitration Case No. 156 of 2022 (old number ‘2 of 2020’) was received by the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant, on 07.03.2024. Thereafter the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant, wrote a letter dated 12.03.2024 directing the Assistant Engineer 3rd, Meerut Region, Ganga Canal Meerut, to submit a narrative along with the brief history of the case for approval from higher authorities regarding filing of an appeal against the judgment and order of the Commercial Court. Assistant Engineer 3rd, Meerut Region, Ganga Canal Meerut provided papers to the Divisional Office on 08.04.2024, which was received in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant on 15.04.2024.
6. The Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant by letter dated 23.04.2024 requested the Superintendent Engineer that permission be obtained from higher authorities to file the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Commercial Court. The Superintendent Engineer, Region 1st , Irrigation Works, Meerut vide letter dated 07.05.2024 requested the Chief Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut to forward the papers to the higher authorities for appropriate action. The Chief Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut raised certain objections and thereafter the file/papers were returned vide letter dated 15.05.2024 to the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Region 1st, Irrigation Works, Meerut. The Superintendent Engineer, Region 1st, Irrigation Works, Meerut by letter dated 17.05.2024 returned the file/papers to the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant, while making certain objections while directing for removal of the same. After receiving the letter dated 17.05.2024, the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2nd appellant, rectified the objections and sent the entire file/ papers on 17.05.2024 to the Superintendent Engineer, 1st circle, Irrigation Works, Meerut. On 24.05.2024, the Superintendent Engineer, 1st circle, Irrigation Wor
The law of limitation applies equally to all parties, including the Government, and a lack of diligence in filing appeals can result in rejection of delay condonation applications.
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 emphasized that delay in filing appeals under the Arbitration Act must be justified by sufficient cause, with negligence being insufficient for condonation.
The court reinforced that strict compliance with limitation periods under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is mandatory, and delays beyond the prescribed time cannot be condoned without adequate ....
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 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....
The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in the matter of condonation of delay, allowing the delay of 23 days to be condoned as sufficient cause was explained by the DDA.
The court may condone delays in filing appeals where sufficient cause is shown, including circumstances beyond a party's control, advocated particularly in light of unprecedented events like a pandem....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
