The court emphasized that the law of limitation binds all parties, and mere bureaucratic delays are insufficient for condoning delays in filing appeals.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, j.

1. The only question which requires a consideration in this appeal is:-

Whether this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short) filed with an application to condone the delay of 126 days in filing the same is liable to be considered on merits or not?

2. This Commercial Appeal is filed under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short) against the judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-83) ('Commercial Court' for short) in COM.AS.No.30 of 2014.

3. Heard Shri. S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel as instructed by Smt. Sumana Naganand and Smt. Ashwini N. Ravindra, learned Advocates appearing for the appellant and Shri. Dhananjay Joshi, learned senior counsel as instructed by Shri. Sharath Chandra J, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The facts of the case as pleaded in the appeal are as follows:-

Appellant is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a deemed licensee under the Electricity Act, 2003. Respondent is a Company involved in the infrastructure business. Tenders were called for the execution of Rural Load Management Systems Works in Ranebennur and Ghatapraba Divisions. The respondent, being the successful bidder, was entrusted with the work of supply of material, erection and commissioning, as well as maintenance of installation for a period of five years. The respondent failed to execute the contract and abandoned the project. The contract was terminated by the appellant. The respondent referred the disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication. After recording evidence and hearing both sides, the Arbitral Tribunal allowed the claims of the respondent in part to an extent of Rs. 6,86,62,587/- along with interest at 15% per annum. Though the award was challenged before the Commercial Court, the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed on 29.11.2021, against which, the present appeal is filed.

5. Several contentions have been raised on the merits of the matter in the appeal. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that there are serious contentions to be urged in this appeal and the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter should be heard on merits.

6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:-

• Union of India v. Varindera constructions Ltd. , reported in (2020) 2 SCC 111 ;

• M/s. Sab Industries Limited v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., passed an order on 17.09.2024 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s). 21111/2024

• N.V.International v. State of Assam & others, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 109 ;

• Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 ;

• Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In Re reported in (2022) 3 SCC 117 ;

• State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors v. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers, decided on 04.04.2022 in SLP (Civil) No.5301 of 2022;

• M/s. Jaitley Constructions Co. v. Union of India , decided on 24.11.2023 in SLP (Civil) No(s).12180/2023;

• Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v. Delhi Metro Ra