The court established that delays due to gross negligence in government departments do not justify the condonation of appeal filings, reinforcing the strict application of limitation laws.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Appeal against the order rejecting the objection under Section 34 as barred by limitation - Delay of 1448 days attributed to negligence and improper handling by departmental officials - Condonation of delay refused as gross negligence not justified. (Paras 1, 10, 14)

(B) Limitation - The usual excuse of red tape or procedural delays cannot warrant the condonation of such long delays. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) Government Departments - Expected to act with diligence; no special treatment for delays caused by negligence. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
The Department of Irrigation’s appeal was due to a significant delay in filing against an arbitration award. Despite having prior legal advice, the department's inaction led to a violation of the statutory limitations.

Findings of Court:
The appeal was dismissed for lack of sufficient cause to condone the delay, affirming that negligence does not warrant leniency.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and sufficient cause existed for condonation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that significant delays resulting from negligence cannot justify the acceptance of late appeals, reinforcing that the law of limitation holds equally for government departments.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. negligence and delay in filing appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9)
2. standards for condoning delay in appeals. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. dismissal of appeal due to delay. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Department of Irrigation under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the ‘Act 1996’) challenging the judgment and order of Commercial Court dated 19.01.2021, rejecting the objection of the appellants under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 against the award of the Arbitrator dated 15.02.2011 as barred by limitation.

2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 1448 days. If we go through the explanation given for the delay, we find it to be a result of gross negligence and callous approach and not for any reason beyond the control of the appellants.

3. The impugned order of the Commercial Court is dated 19.01.2021. On 12.02.2021, the Executive Engineer, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur wrote to the Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur to obtain legal opinion in respect of the said order. The Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur after getting legal opinion from the District Government Counsel, Kanpur Nagar forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer along with letter dated 08.03.2021. On 12.03.2021 the Executive Engineer, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur forwarded the legal opinion to the Superintending Engineer, Second Circle, Irrigation Works, Kanpur with a request to take proper and appropriate steps. The Superintending Engineer, in turn, forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer (Ram Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Kanpur. At the same time, he also directed the Executive Engineer to prepare a brief history of the case. On 03.04.2021, the Executive Engineer once again wrote to the Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur to prepare a brief history of the case. On 08.07.2021, the Executive Engineer informed the Superintending Engineer about the application of the respondent to comply with the judgment and order of the Commercial Court dated 19.01.2021. Despite having full knowledge that the claimant- respondent has been insisting for compliance of the order, no concrete step was taken to ensure filing of the appeal. On 07.01.2022, the Executive Engineer, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur Nagar again wrote the Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur to provide a brief history of the case. On 03.03.2022, the history of the case was provided to the Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer, for reasons best known to him, returned the file once again to Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur to provide summary of the case in five sets under his signature. On 04.04.2022, the said direction was complied with. Again, the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 16.04.2022 returned the file to Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur with direction to rectify some errors and resubmit it to his office. It is stated that the Assistant Engineer II, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur resubmitted the file vide letter dated 21.04.2022. The Executive Engineer, Kanpur Division, Lower Ganga Canal, Kanpur, thereafter, vide letter dated 13.05.2022 forwarded the file to the Superintending Engineer and who on 18.05.2022 forwarded the file to Chief Engineer (Ram Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Kanpur. This time, the Chief Engineer returned the file for obtaining signatures of Superintending Engineer over the same as was done by the Executive Engineer in the past in respect of the summary provided by Assistant Engineer. The Superintending Engineer on 19.05.2022 further returned the file to the Executive Engineer with direction to verify it under his signature and resubmit it. The Executive Engineer vide letter dated 23.05.2022 transmitte