Order On Board

Per Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

14.05.2026

1. This arbitration appeal U/s. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter, referred as “the Act of 2015”) is filed against the order dated 01.12.2025, passed in MJC Case No. unregistered/2021, passed by 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby application filed by appellant U/s. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as ‘the Act of 1996”) has been rejected holding it to be barred by limitation.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that a part of the land admeasuring 0.053 hectares, out of the total land area of 0.121 hectares owned and possessed by the appellant, bearing Khasra No. 144/2 and situated at Village Mohanpur, PH No. 1, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba, was acquired by Indian Railways for construction of Gevera Road to Pendra Road under East Rail Corridor, Special Rail Project of Government of India under the Indian Railways Act, 1989. Determined compensation and awarded compensation of Rs.9,34,500/- in favour of appellant vide order dated 07.07.2016. Feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, appellant filed an application before the Arbitrator-cum-Additional Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur, seeking enhancement of the award amount under Section 20F the Railways Act, 1989. The Arbitrator, without properly considering the grounds raised by the appellant, rejected the application holding that the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer was just and proper and it is in accordance with the prevailing market rate. Aggrieved by the award dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Arbitrator, the appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level, Bilaspur, which came to be dismissed by the order impugned holding that the application is barred by limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the impugned order passed by the 2nd District Judge (Commercial Court), District Judge Level District Bilaspur (C.G.) rejecting the claim of appellant on the ground of limitation is bad in law and erroneous. He would further submit that the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court is contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that the Court failed to properly consider the cause of delay in filing the application, as the appellant, being an aged person, could not collect the necessary documents in time and, owing to ill health, was unable to file the application within the prescribed period. By the impugned order, the appellant stands deprived of his valuable and substantive right to seek adjudication of his claim on merits. Such a valuable right cannot be defeated or taken away merely on account of technical irregularities, particularly when the delay occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. He also submits that Land Acquisition Officer while assessing the award against acquisition of land of appellant, failed to consider the correct market value and existing guidelines framed for determination of compensation at the relevant point of time. As the land acquired was the sole source of livelihood and income of the appellant, acquisition of the said land without awarding proper compensation is illegal. Therefore, rejection of the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by the learned Commercial Court solely on the ground of a delay of six months is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and supports the impugned order. They however, submits that in absence of any notification issued by the Central Government under Section 2 (1) (c) (xxii) covering arbitration dispute governed by the pr