The court established that limitation provisions in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be interpreted liberally for the State, recognizing that bureaucratic processes, though inefficient, may constitute 'sufficient cause' for condoning short delays to prevent the denial of substantive legal remedies.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2024, whereby an application bearing number OMP(M) No.74 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections in Abr. Case No.593 of 2023, titled State of HP and Anr. Vs. M/s. Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd., under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for the purpose of brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The Award, in the case at hand, was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 20.02.2023. A signed copy of the Award was received by the appellant No.2 on 20.02.2023 itself. Subsequent thereto, appellant No.2 vide letter dated 11.04.2023, submitted a copy of the Award to the office of the Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle, HPPWD, Rampur, District Shimla, HP, for the further necessary action.

3. The office of the Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle, HPPWD, Rampur, Shimla, HP, vide letter dated 19.04.2023, further forwarded the Award along with the entire record to the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, HP, for examination. At the said office, the matter was examined by the Legal Cell and after examination, the matter was submitted to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 10.05.2023.

4. The matter at the Government level was examined in consultation with the Law Department and as per the opinion of the Law Department, the matter was conveyed to appellant No.1 vide letter dated 27.05.2023.

5. The decision of the Government was conveyed to appellant No.2 vide letter dated 03.06.2023. Based on the same, appellant No.2 took steps to get the objections drafted. The objections were got prepared and filed after the period of three months from the receipt of the signed copy of the Award, however, within 30 days as provided in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.

6. In the response filed to the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act, a specific objection was taken by the present respondent that for nearly about 2 months, after the receipt of signed copy of the Award i.e. from 20.02.2023 till 11.04.2023, there was no explanation coming forthwith as to what was done by the appellants. In the rejoinder filed, stand taken by the appellants was that the delay in filing the objections was on account of impersonal machinery and bureaucratic methodology.

7. Other than the aforesaid, it was averred in the rejoinder that for 90 days after the receipt of a signed copy of the Award, no explanation was required to be given by the appellants, as to why objections were not filed within the said prescribed period. It was further averred in the rejoinder that the delay, i.e., to be explained by the appellants is qua the period post 90 days of receipt of the signed copy of the Award.

8. The aforesaid contention of the appellants has been rejected, as according to the learned Single Judge, the appellants were required to show “sufficient cause” for not having filed the objections under Section 34 of the Act within 90 days from the receipt of the signed copy of the Award, i.e., between 20.02.2023 (date of receipt of award) till 11.04.2023 (date on which a copy of the Award was submitted by appellant No.2 to the office of the Superintending Engineer, 11th Circle, HPPWD, Rampur, District Shimla, HP).

9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and record.

10. At the very outset, it would be appropriate to state that since the learned single judge has refused to condone the delay, in the case at h