1. Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging rejection of objections under Section 34 – Delay of 1560 days. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(UK) 240
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
State of U.P. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Lokendra Verma – Respondent
Appeal From Order No.241 of 2020
Decided On : 04-07-2025
Important Points
Delay of 1560 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act cannot be condoned when the government department fails to provide sufficient cause and acts negligently; bureaucratic red tape is not an acceptable explanation.
Subject
Civil Law - Arbitration
Act Referred
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT : S.34, S.37
Headnote
(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - Appeal filed under Section 37 with delay of 1560 days - Principles from Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers (2021) 6 SCC 460 and Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Sufficient cause requires absence of negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides - Government departments not entitled to different yardstick - Bureaucratic red tape and movement of files between departments not acceptable explanation - Delay beyond prescribed period (90/30/60 days) to be condoned only by way of exception, not rule. (Paras 9, 11, 58-63)
(B) Arbitration - Object and purpose - Speedy resolution of disputes - Finality of awards - Limitation periods must be adhered to strictly - Appeals under Section 37 are time-bound and delays defeat the object of the Act. (Paras 9-10, 31)
Facts of the case:
The appellants (State government) filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging a judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed by the District Judge rejecting their objections under Section 34 of the Act. The appeal was filed after a delay of 1560 days. The appellants attributed the delay to procedural steps: obtaining legal opinions, seeking permissions from various departmental authorities, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent opposed the delay condonation application, citing lack of sufficient cause and reliance on Supreme Court judgments.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the appellants were fully aware of the judgment from the beginning yet acted in a callous and negligent manner. The period from 18.05.2016 to 23.11.2016 (six months) for obtaining a legal opinion was unexplained. Subsequent delays of over 18 months between letters and reminders demonstrated lack of diligence. The court found no sufficient cause and dismissed the delay condonation application, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 1560 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act can be condoned; whether the appellants showed sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi: For appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the prescribed limitation periods (90/30/60 days) are to be strictly adhered to. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is interpreted in light of the object of speedy disposal under the Arbitration Act. Mere involvement of the government does not justify a different standard. Bureaucratic delays and internal file movements are not sufficient cause unless the party acted bona fide and without negligence. Long delays beyond the prescribed period are condoned only as an exception, not as a rule. Result : Delay condonation application dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
(B) Arbitration - Object and purpose - Speedy resolution of disputes - Finality of awards - Limitation periods must be adhered to strictly - Appeals under Section 37 are time-bound and delays defeat the object of the Act. (Paras 9-10, 31)
Facts of the case:
The appellants (State government) filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging a judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed by the District Judge rejecting their objections under Section 34 of the Act. The appeal was filed after a delay of 1560 days. The appellants attributed the delay to procedural steps: obtaining legal opinions, seeking permissions from various departmental authorities, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The respondent opposed the delay condonation application, citing lack of sufficient cause and reliance on Supreme Court judgments.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the appellants were fully aware of the judgment from the beginning yet acted in a callous and negligent manner. The period from 18.05.2016 to 23.11.2016 (six months) for obtaining a legal opinion was unexplained. Subsequent delays of over 18 months between letters and reminders demonstrated lack of diligence. The court found no sufficient cause and dismissed the delay condonation application, resulting in dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: Whether the inordinate delay of 1560 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act can be condoned; whether the appellants showed sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi: For appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, the prescribed limitation periods (90/30/60 days) are to be strictly adhered to. The expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is interpreted in light of the object of speedy disposal under the Arbitration Act. Mere involvement of the government does not justify a different standard. Bureaucratic delays and internal file movements are not sufficient cause unless the party acted bona fide and without negligence. Long delays beyond the prescribed period are condoned only as an exception, not as a rule. Result : Delay condonation application dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
-
condonation of delay
- sufficient cause
-
condonation of delay
-
arbitration
-
appeal under section 37
- condonation of delay
-
appeal under section 37
-
limitation
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate.
For the Appellants : Mr. I.D. Paliwal, Standing Counsel.
For the Respondent:Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate.
Table of Contents
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Present appeal from order has been filed underSection 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, the Act) challenging the judgment dated 18.05.2016 passed by District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case No.93 of 2014, whereby the objection filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act, was rejected and the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.16 of 2007, was upheld.
2. The sole Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the claim between the appellants/Superintending Engineer, U.P., Irrigation Department, Upper Ganga Canal Modernisation Circle Ist, Haridwar Road, Roorkee and the respondent Lokendra Verma qua payment of dues towards the construction of Stop Log Structure at Km. 29.250 of Parallel Upper Ganga Canal at Roorkee, Haridwar. The date of commencement of work was settled as 08.02.1994 and the entire work was required to be completed upto 07.08.1995. The Arbitration Case No.16/2007 was decided on 01.03.2013 and the appellants were directed to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.19,77,251/- within a period of two months, failing which interest @ 18% per annum was to be paid. Against the Award passed by the Arbitrator on 01.03.2013, the appellants preferred Objections u/s 34 of the Act before the District Judge, Haridwar. Learned District Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment dated 18.05.2016 rejected the objection of the appellants. Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants along with the Delay Condonation Application.
3. As per the report of Registry, there is a delay of 1560 days in filing the present appeal. The appellants have stated the reasons for such inordinate delay in paragraphs nos.3 to 17 of the affidavit filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, which are reproduced below:-
“3. That the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Dehradun passed the impugned judgment on 18.05.2016.
4. That thereafter the legal opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil) was obtained by the appellants, who opined that the Judgment dated 18.05.2016 should be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court Nainital. True and correct copy of the Legal Opinion of the DGC (Civil) Saharanpur, dated 23.11.2016 is annexed and marked as Annexure No.A-1.
5. That after receiving the legal opinion of the D.G.C. (Civil) the Executive Engineer, Northern Division, Ganga Canal, Roorkee, wrote letter to the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Canal Sanchalan Mandal, Meerut, for seeking permission of the State Law Department for granting sanction to file appeal against the Judgment dated 18.05.2016. True and correct copy of the letter no.244/m[kxUk:@dksVZ dsl dated 13.01.2017 is annexed and marked as Annexure No.A-2.
6. That thereafter, vide letter no.2930/m[kxu:@dksVZ dsl] dated 17.07.2018, a reminder was sent to the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Canal Sanchalan Mandal, Meerut. True and correct copy of the letter no.2930 m[kxu:@dksVZ dsl] dated 17.07.2018 is annexed and marked as Annexure No.A-3.
7. That thereafter, the proposal to file appeal against the Judgment dated 18.05.2016 was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer, Ganga Canal Sanchalan Mandal, Meerut to the Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Uttar Pradesh, Meerut, vide letter no.4034/ xaule@dksVZ dsl dated 13.08.2018. True and correct copy of the letter no.4034/ xaule@dksVZ dsl dated 13.08.2018 is annexed and marked as Annexure No.A-4.
8. That the Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Uttar Pradesh, Meerut, vide letter no.10546/eqvxaxk@,l&3@dksVZ dsl dated 30.08.2018 forwarded the proposal to Chief Engineer (Parivad), office of the Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. True and correct copy of the letter no.10546/eqvxxak@,l&3@dksVZ dsl dated 30.08.2018 is annexed and marked as Annexure No.A-4.
9. That thereafter, vide letter no.5254/yhxy lsy dated 07.09.2018, the Nodal Officer & Executive Engineer (Legal Cell), office of the Engineer-i
