1. Appeal against arbitral award — Dismissal of appeal by Division Bench due to delay in filing and refiling under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1705
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Union of India – Petitioner
Versus
M/s Varindera Const. Ltd – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23155 of 2013 With SLP(C) No. 24471 of 2013
Decided On : 17-09-2018
Important Points
Any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
Subject
Civil Law - Arbitration and Conciliation
Act Referred
Headnote
Delay in Filing Appeal - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court held that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India filed an appeal arising from an Arbitral Award. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench due to a delay of 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal beyond 120 days should not be allowed as it defeats the statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided promptly. Therefore, the Special Leave Petitions were not entertained based on the delay in filing the original appeal.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: Any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
Final Decision: The Special Leave Petitions were not entertained based on the delay in filing the original appeal.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, ASG, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M.S. Samantaray, Adv., Bharti tyagi, Adv., Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv., Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Deepak Khurana, Adv., Mr. T. Anand, Adv., Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, AOR.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikramjit Banerji, ASG, Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M.S. Samantaray, Adv., Bharti tyagi, Adv., Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Ayush Anand, Adv., Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Deepak Khurana, Adv., Mr. T. Anand, Adv., Mr. Umesh Kumar Khaitan, AOR.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should be condoned. (Para 3 )
3. Appellate proceedings are a continuation of original proceedings; excessive delay in filing appeals defeats the statutory objective of deciding arbitration proceedings with utmost despatch. (Para 4 )
4. Delay beyond 120 days in filing a Section 37 appeal from a Section 34 order should not be allowed to ensure expeditious arbitration. (Para 4 )
5. Special Leave Petitions disposed of and not entertained due to the delay in filing the original appeal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Can a delay beyond 120 days be condoned for an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996?
No, the court held that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 from an order under Section 34 should not be allowed, as it would defeat the statutory purpose of deciding arbitration proceedings with utmost despatch. (Para 4 )
7. How does the court characterize the relationship between an appellate proceeding and an original proceeding?
The court held that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding. (Para 4 )
ORDER :
1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By a judgment dated 19.04.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3995 of 2018 [Union of India vs. M/s Varindera Constructions Ltd. Etc.], this Court has in near identical facts and circumstances allowed the appeal of the Union of India in a proceeding arising from an Arbitral Award.
3. Ordinarily, we would have applied the said judgment to this case as well. However, we find that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 10.04.2013 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India on the ground of delay. The delay was found to be 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal. One of the important points made by the Division Bench is that, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause made out in the grounds of delay, since a Section 34 application has to be filed within a maximum period of 120 days including the grace period of 30 days, an appeal filed from the self-same proceeding under Section 37 should be covered by the same drill.
4. Given the fact that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, as has been held in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others vs. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri and Others , AIR 1941 Federal Court 5, and repeatedly followed by our judgments, we feel that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.
5. In this view of the matter, since even the original appeal was filed with a delay period of 142 days, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions on the facts of this particular case.
6. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
