2026:CGHC:13694-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ARBA No. 8 of 2023

1 - Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board, Beej Bhawan, Telibandha Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Through The Managing Director.

... Appellant versus

1 - M/s Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. Plot Y-14, Block EP, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata 700091 - Having Its Office At Building

8, 7th and 8th Floor, Tower B, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

For Respondent : Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocates through V.C. and Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate.

D.B. : Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal (Order on Board)

(23.03.2026)

Per Rajani Dubey, J

1. The instant arbitration appeal has been preferred by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board-Appellant herein being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Commercial Court (District Level), in M.J.C. No.06/2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been dismissed holding the arbitral award dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator not against the public policy of India.

2. The present appeal has been filed along with an application (I.A. No. 01/2023) seeking condonation of delay on the ground that the impugned order was passed by the learned Commercial Court on 08.08.2022, whereas the appeal was filed on 27.01.2023, resulting in a delay of 110 days.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the short delay caused in preferring the appeal is highly bonafide since there was no intent on the part of the appellant to cause any delay in preferring the appeal and the same has been caused due to procedural held-ups. After rejection of the application of the appellant filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by the learned Commercial Court, a legal opinion was sought by the appellant on 25.11.2022 and after obtaining the legal advice, a decision to file the instant appeal was taken and immediately thereafter, the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained on 14.12.2022. Learned counsel also submits that the delay caused in preferring the instant appeal is not at all deliberate of intentional. It has occasioned owing to an unfortunate circumstance for which the appellant seeks for condonation of delay as the matter involves vital question of law to be decided by this Court in order to prevent the abuse of process of law.

In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531 and Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460

4. Learned counsel for respondent strongly opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that the learned Commercial Court passed the order on 08.08.2022 and the appeal has been preferred by the appellant on 27.01.2023 i.e. after delay of 110 days and no sufficient cause has been shown in the application justifying such a long delay in filing the present appeal. The present appeal is most malafide and has been filed with intention to delay the payment of dues awarded by the learned Arbitrator and frustrated the execution of the petition filed by the respondent before the learned Commercial Court, Raipur on 25.11.2022, and after receiving the notice of such execution, the appellant filed the present appeal on 26.01.2023 with an intention to delay the execution of award. Learned counsel further submits that limitation for filing the present appeal commenced as prescribed under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Court Act is 60 days from the date of judgment/order. The learned Commercial Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 passed the final judgment in the applicat