Gujarat High Court
Union Of India Through Executive ... vs M/S. Priyanka Construction (Baroda) ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 923 of
2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29066 of 2024
With
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29066 of 2024
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2024
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 29066 of 2024
==========================================================
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
M/S. PRIYANKA CONSTRUCTION (BARODA) PVT. LTD.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act, 1996") has been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Vadodara Central Division, Vadodara, challenging the Arbitral Award dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator as also the judgment and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined the Commercial Court/4th Additional District Judge, Vadodara in rejecting the application under Section 34 seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award.
2. The delay of 61 days in filing the present appeal is sought to be explained in the application seeking condonation of delay dated 23.09.2024 filed along with the present appeal. In a vague manner, it was stated in paragraph No. '2' of the said application that the impugned judgment under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was passed on 10.05.2024 and the same was received by the applicant-appellant on 31.07.2024. Upon receiving the copy of the said order, the same was analyzed at appropriate organisational hierarchies and after detailed examination of the impugned order and other relevant documents, the decision was taken to file an appeal invoking Section 37 of the Act, 1996. The matter was then placed before the Additional Solicitor General of India on 06.08.2024 and, thereafter, the appeal was prepared and verification was done on 23.09.2024. The submission, thus, is that the delay of 61 days is a procedural delay and was unintentional and purely administrative in nature.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
3. Having considered these submissions made in the application seeking condonation of delay, by the order dated 22.07.2025 noticing that no sufficient cause has been shown in the application seeking condonation of delay, two weeks time was granted to the learned advocate appearing for the appellant to file a better affidavit. The additional affidavit dated 08.08.2025 was then filed giving a date chart as to the manner in which the preparation of the appeal had proceeded from the date of passing of the impugned order under Section 34 proceedings.
4. From a perusal of the date and event chart extracted in the affidavit dated 08.08.2025, pertinent is to note that after the order dated 10.05.2024 was passed in the Commercial Civil Misc. Application No.74 of 2022, under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, a letter No. 964-H dated 26.06.2024 stated to have been written to the learned advocate requesting for the certified copy of the judgment and his opinion. The further assertions are about the communications between the Department and the learned advocate, as also some inter- departmental communications etc., but none of the aforesaid communications/letters have been brought on record with the Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined said affidavit.
5. Noticing the above, by another order dated 12.08.2025, we have granted time to the learned advocate to file a further better affidavit giving explanation of day to day delay in the presentation of the present appeal. The third affidavit dated 19.08.2025 has been filed as additional affidavit to the application seeking condonation of delay wherein various communications have been brought on record.
6. Pertinent is to note the assertions in paragraph No. '2' of the third affidavit, wherein it is stated that the impugned order was passed on 10.05.2024 in Commerical Civil Misc. Application No. 74 of 2022 by the Commercial Court, Vadodara and the said date was the last working day before the summer vacation of this Court. The submission is that the period from 10.05.2024 to 09.06.2024 was of Court vacations and, therefore, the applicant could not procure the copy of the impugned order. The order was, thereafter, obtained and the applicant then wrote the letter no. 964-H dated 26.06.2024, a copy of which is appended at page No. '80' of the paper-book.
Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
7. From the abovenoted averments made in the third additional affidavit, pertinent is to note that there is complete silence as to when the applicant came to know about the order passed on 10.04.2024 by the Commercial Court. The letter dated 26.06.2024 brought on record, was adressed to the learned advocate seeking his opinion/comment on the Court Judgment. The averments of the said letter do not indicate as to when the appellant got knowledge of the passing of the impugned judgment by the Commercial Court. Even the date when the certified copy of the judgment was applied for has not been indicated therein. However, from the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 10.05.2024, available on the record, we could notice that the certified copy of the judgment of the Commerial Court was applied by the appellant through the learned advocate on 01.07.2024. The copy was prepared and delivered on 30.07.2024.
8. It is, thus, evident that even as per the assertions made in Paragraph No.'2' of the additional affidavit dated 19.08.2025, the certified copy was applied after a period of one month of the date, i.e. 09.06.2024, when allegedly the Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined Court vacations was over. Thus, as per the averments in three affidavits, the period of approximately 22 days remained explained. Moreover, we may note that there is no Court vacations in the Civil Court from 10.05.2024 to 09.06.2024 and the period of vacation as stated in Paragraph No.'2' of the additional affidavit could be said to be about the Court vacations of the High Court of Gujarat. In any case, the vacations do not completely shut down the working of the office/Registry, even in the High Court.
9. As there is no Court vacation in the District Court, the explanation offered in third affidavit about the delay in applying the certified copy of the order, for the period of approximately two months from 10.05.2024 to 01.07.2024, remained unexplained.
10. Further, after getting the certified copy on 30.07.2024, pertinent is to note that the letter seeking legal opinion from the Additional Solicitor General was received on 06.08.2024 and, thereafter, process for approval for filing the appeal has been initiated which has taken further time and appeal was presented only on 07.10.2024.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/923/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025 undefined
11. From the abovenoted facts, it is more than evident that the deponent of the affidavits namely the Executive Engineer, CPWD, Vadodara has not given correct and complete facts for explanation of the delay of 61 days in presentation of the present appeal. The statements made in three affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant as noted hereinabove are misleading in nature. The delay of 61 days in filing the present appeal, therefore, has not been explained to the satisfaction of the Court and hence cannot be condoned. The delay condonation application is accordingly, rejected. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, all the connected Civil Application stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BINA SHAH Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by BINA SHAH(HC00353) on Wed Sep 10 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 10 22:24:59 IST 2025