Ved Prakash And 2 Others vs National Highway Authority Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4152 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 20 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Ved Prakash And 2 Others
 
Respondent :- National Highway Authority Of India And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Arunesh Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

1. 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 30.4.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 113 of 2014. By that order, the learned District Judge, Jhansi, has rejected the objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act, arising from the award dated 30.4.2013 passed by learned Arbitrator.

2. Present appeal was presented before this Court on 6.3.2021, carrying a delay of 2047 days. Even if the delay for the period 15.3.2020 to 14.3.2021 is to be ignored, still the present appeal is hopelessly beyond time, it having been filed well after 120 days from the date of service of the order dated 30.4.2015, which date is disclosed to be 22.8.2016 (on the certified copy of the order dated 30.4.2015 appended to this appeal).

3. 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."

4. In view of the above, deficiency of court fee is overlooked at this stage.

5. 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 :- 19.3.2021

Prakhar