Point of Law : Merely because the appellant is Government organization, lenience cannot be shown to condone such a long delay.

JUDGMENT :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

The then A.P.State Warehousing Corporation entered into an agreement with Sri A.Rama Krishna on 29.09.2004 for handling and transport services, which is essentially required for loading and transportation at the godowns. Disputes arose between the respondents 1 and 2, and also the appellant. The Managing Director of Warehousing Corporation nominated the third respondent as Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed award on 18.10.2008. This award of the Arbitrator was challenged by the appellant in Arbitration O.P.No.343 of 2009 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (for short, Act, 1966) in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The Chief Judge vide her order dated 27.06.2017 dismissed the petition, confirming the award dated 18.10.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is filed. Appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 praying to condone the delay of 898 days in filing the appeal.

2.1. We have heard extensively the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant on the delay condonation application. According to the learned counsel, there was no privity of contract between the petitioner/appellant and the respondents 1 and 2. The appellant has not subscribed to the arbitration clause either in oral or in written communication and the arbitration clause is applicable only between the parties to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, petitioner/appellant was illegally drawn into arbitration proceedings and award was passed by the Arbitrator without appreciating the true and correct facts.

2.2. According to learned counsel, though petitioner/appellant is no way concerned with the agreement entered into by the first and second respondents and though a specific plea was taken in this regard before the Arbitrator as well as before the lower Court, the same was not properly appreciated and issue was not decided in a right perspective and illegally liability is fastened on the petitioner/appellant.

2.3. He would submit that the Office of appellant corporation was not aware of the orders passed in Section 34 of the Act, 1996, application till notice in E.P., was received and the lawyer appearing for the Food Corporation of India (for short ‘FCI’) did not inform of that result.

2.4. He would submit that due to bifurcation of the State, even the functioning of the FCI was affected and there is lot of disturbance in movement of the people and files, resulting in dislocation of work. Due to this, there was shortage of staff even to attend to day to day functioning of the Office. He would further submit that added to this, spread of Covid-19 pandemic impaired the functioning of Office of the FCI.

2.5. On the long delay in filing the application he would submit that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, which are referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, (2000) 9 SCC 94 that in Government Organizations decisions are taken at a laid back pace, requires processing of files at various levels, delay may also cause on account of a particular level officer going on leave or otherwise busy or is slow in dealing with matters and, therefore, while considering application for condonation of delay, these special circumstances have to be taken note of and liberally construed.

2.5.1. He would submit that there is no mala fide intention in filing the appeal with long delay. There was no occasion to adopt dilatory tactics as award was staring at the FCI. It has not drawn any advantage by filing the appeal at belated stage. The delay is caused in the peculiar facts of the case. It was not willful or deliberate. He therefore, appeals to the Court to condone the delay and to admit the appeal.

3. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner/appellant is entitled to seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

4. To appreciate this contention, it is necessary to consider the re