State Of U.P. And Another vs J.V. Construction Rajvila Nagar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1961 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 81 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Respondent :- J.V. Construction Rajvila Nagar
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhanshu Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the District Judge, Mahoba, on objections filed under Section 34 of the Act with reference to the award of the sole arbitrator dated 30.04.2018.

3. Present appeal is reported to have been filed beyond time by 77 days. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application reveals that certified copy of the order dated 17.05.2019 was first received by the appellant on 24.05.2019. That fact has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. Computed therefrom, the limitation to file the present appeal existed upto 22.08.2019. If a further period of 30 days therefrom is added, the limitation would extend upto 21.09.2019.

4. Undisputedly, the appeal was first presented before the Court on 05.11.2019 well beyond the period of 120 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order dated 17.05.2019.

5. In M/s N.V. International Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.; (2020) 2 SCC 109, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. Varindera Construction Ltd. passed in SLP (C) No. 23155 of 2013, decided on 17.09.2018. Following that decision, the Supreme Court has observed as under:

"5. We may only add that what we have done in the aforesaid judgment is to add to the period of 90 days, which is provided by statute for filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by following Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul & Ors. (supra), as also having regard to the object of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes which was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the 1996 Act, and which has been strengthened from time to time by amendments made thereto. The present delay being beyond 120 days is not liable, therefore, to be condoned.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed."

6. In view of the facts noted above and no contrary law having been shown by the State, the present appeal is wholly beyond limitation prescribed. The delay is beyond time of condonation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.2.2021

Abhilash