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

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.








                                                                                                             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

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.







                                                                                                             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

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.






                                                                                                           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