Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Union of India under Section 37(1) (c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’) read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, inter alia, assailing the judgement dated 1st July, 2023 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the ld. District Judge, Commercial Court-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in OMP (COMM) No. 108/2023 titled Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers & Contractors). Vide the impugned judgement, the petition under Section 34 of the Act has been dismissed on merits.

3. The brief background of the present case is that a tender was invited by the Northern Railway for construction of the boundary wall, road wheel lathe, and all other allied works at the Coaching Terminal at Shakur Basti and the Diesel Shed at Shakur Basti. The total cost which was accepted was Rs.2,50,67,545/-. The contract was formally awarded to the Respondent on 16th December, 2015 and the completion date was 15th September, 2016.

4. According to the contractor who is the Respondent before this Court, the Railways had terminated the contract on 13th June, 2016 which was illegal.

5. Disputes arose because of delay in the project for which the contractor blamed the Railways and the Railways took the opposing stand. The contractor then invoked the arbitration clause and filed a claim petition before the ld. Arbitrator. The matter was referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter, ‘DIAC’) and a sole Arbitrator was appointed.

6. An award was rendered on 15th June, 2018 wherein the ld. Sole Arbitrator framed various issues and awarded some of the claims of the Contractor by award dated 15th June, 2018, pronounced on 24th July, 2018.

7. Thereafter, the said award was challenged by the Appellant under Section 34 of the Act in OMP (COMM) No. 108/2023. Vide the impugned judgment, the ld. District Judge dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal had duly explained the reasons for arriving at its decision and the reasoning provided in the Award is just, fair and reasonable.

8. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Act challenging the impugned judgment upholding the award.

9. Under Section 37(1)(c) of the Act, an appeal would be maintainable against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award. However, the time period for filing such an appeal is governed by Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The period provided for filing of an appeal as per Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is 60 days from the date of judgment/ order, however, by way of judicial decisions, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 have also been held to be applicable to such appeals.

10. The time period within which an appeal under Section 37 of the Act can be filed has been discussed and laid down in detail by the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented By Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. ,(2021) 6 SCC 460. In the said judgment the Supreme Court has considered the decisions in N. V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 and Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111 .

11. In Varindera Constructions (Supra), the Court had held that a total of 120 days would be available for filing of such an appeal.

12. In Borse Brothers (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with three cases arising from judgments of the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The former two High Courts had taken a view that delay in filing of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act beyond 120 days would not be condonable, however, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had taken a view that a delay of 57 days would be liable to be