Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Project Director vs K Praveen Babu on 23 September, 2024
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010310382024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3488]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1593, 1656, 1661 & 1662 of 2024
C.R.P. No.1593 of 2024
Between:
The Project Director ...PETITIONER
AND
K Praveen Babu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
C.R.P. No.1656 of 2024
Between:
The Project Director ...PETITIONER
AND
K Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
C.R.P. No.1661 of 2024
Between:
The Project Director ...PETITIONER
AND
K Mohanrami Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
RRR, J & HN, J
C.R.P.Nos.1593 of 2024 & batch
Between:
The Project Director, ...PETITIONER
AND
K Chandrasekhar Reddy and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. S S VARMA (SC FOR NHAI)
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MUNI REDDY PERURU
The Court made the following common order:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
As all these Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same issue, they
are being disposed of by way of this common order.
2. In all these cases, the petitioner herein had sought to challenge
the arbitral award passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor,
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. In all these cases, the period of 90 days for approaching the
District Court, after receipt of the award, had elapsed prior to the Summer
Vacation, 2023. The subsequent 30 days period, which could be condoned by
the Learned District Judge, had elapsed during the Summer Vacation, 2023.
The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 34, on the reopening day
after the said Summer Vacation.
RRR, J & HN, J
C.R.P.Nos.1593 of 2024 & batch
4. The period of delay in each of these cases is different. However,
the fact remains that the 90 days period, for filing the appeal, in all the cases,
had elapsed before the Court had closed for the Summer Vacation and the 30
days period had lapsed during the Summer Vacation.
5. The Learned Principal District Judge, Chittoor, by way of separate
orders, dated 28.03.2024, had dismissed the Interlocutory Applications filed
for condoning the delay, under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that the period for filing the appeal had
lapsed and there was no power for the Court to condone such delay.
6. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has approached this
Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petitions.
7. Sri S .S. Varma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that though the 30 days period, for which the Learned Principal
District Judge has power to condone the delay, had lapsed during the
Summer Vacation, the Learned Judge ought to have given the benefit under
Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the petitioner as the petitioner had
approached the Court on the reopening day.
8. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
private respondents, in all these cases, relies upon the Judgment of the
RRR, J & HN, J
C.R.P.Nos.1593 of 2024 & batch
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal vs.
Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Limited1 .
9. Paragraph 12 of the said Judgment covers the entire issue as the
said paragraph reads as follows:
"12. In the facts of the case in hand, the three months
provided by way of limitation expired a day before the
commencement of the pooja vacation, which commenced
on 01.10.2022. Thus, the prescribed period within the
meaning of Section 4 of the Limitation Act ended on
30.09.2022. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to
take benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. As per the
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34, the period of
limitation could have been extended by a maximum period
of 30 days. The maximum period of 30 days expired on
30.10.2022. As noted earlier, the petition was filed on
31.10.2022."
10. In view of the aforesaid finding of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act,
1963, in the present case.
11. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(2024) 7 SCC 257
RRR, J & HN, J
C.R.P.Nos.1593 of 2024 & batch
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand
closed.
_______________________
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
______________
HARINATH.N, J
MJA
RRR, J & HN, J
C.R.P.Nos.1593 of 2024 & batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1593, 1656, 1661 & 1662 of 2024
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao)
23.09.2024
MJA
