The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing an appeal filed for condonation of delay observed that the Arbitration Act being a legislation for speedy redressal, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for delay and in the present case, the reasons provided for condonation of delay are without assigning any specific reasons for the delay.
Brief Facts:
The present appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order passed by the court, wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed due to a delay of four months in filing the same.
Observations of the court:
The court referred to the decision in the case of M/s N.V. International v. State of Asam & Ors., wherein the court extended the statutory period of 90 days for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act by an additional grace period of 30 days, in accordance with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Further, the court referred to the decision in the case of the Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., wherein it was held that delays beyond specified periods should be condoned only in exceptional cases, considering factors such as the party's bona fide actions and absence of negligence.
The court stated that the Arbitration Act being legislation for speedy redressal, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for delay and in the present case, the reasons provided for condonation of delay are without assigning any specific reasons for the delay. No documents have been provided for the reasons given in the said affidavit. Further, the court stated that the explanation given is not compelling and the discretionary power is only to be exercised when sufficient cause is made out and compelling reasons are provided for condonation of delay.
The court stated that in the present case, the appellant has acted in a lackadaisical manner from the very inception as it appears from the records that the application under Section 34 of the Act of the appellant was also dismissed as time-barred on the ground that the filing of the appeal was delayed by four months and in spite of the same, this appeal has been filed once again belatedly with a delay of 552 days.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.
Case Title: National Highways Authority Of India vs Shri Krishna Uchchter Madhyamic Vidhyalaya and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Pathak
Case No.: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 108 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Dhananjay Awasthi
Advocate for the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
