Uttarakhand High Court
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam vs M/S Mahavir Transmission Udyog on 2 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Appeal Against Order No.346 OF 2022
2nd NOVEMBER, 2022
Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam
Limited and Another ......Appellants
Vs.
M/s Mahavir Transmission Udyog
Private Limited and Another ......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. D.S. Patni, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Dharmendra
Barthwal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. Rajat Mittal, learned counsel for the respondents.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
On the last occasion, adjournment was sought by
the appellant by stating that he would like to settle their
disputes with the respondents.
2. Mr. Patni states that settlement talks have failed on
the quantum that the appellant is willing to pay and the
respondent is willing to accept. Accordingly, we proceed to
hear the present matter.
3. By filing Delay Condonation Application
No.IA/2/2022, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 908
days in preferring the present appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment
dated 31.05.2017 rendered by the Commercial Court
dismissing the objections preferred by the appellants under
Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in
respect of the arbitral award dated 25.08.2015.
4. In the application filed to seek condonation of delay,
the appellants admit that the appellants learnt of the passing
of the award on 12.06.2017, when they received the caveat
preferred by the respondent. The appellants have sought to
justify the delay by stating that the Senior Accounts
Officer/Material Management sent a communication dated
04.09.2017 to the appellants' counsel at Dehradun requesting
him to supply a copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017.
5. It is further stated that in spite of the said letter, no
copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017 was received by the
appellants and for want of a copy of the said judgment further
action for challenging the judgment dated 31.05.2017 could
not be taken.
6. The appellant states that he had received a copy of
the Execution Case No. 62 of 2019 preferred by the respondent
for the first time on 10.08.2022. Even with the execution case,
copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017 was not annexed.
7. The aforesaid explanation is completely bereft of
merit and there is no worthwhile or reasonable justification,
whatsoever, offered by the appellant for the immense delay of
908 days in preferring the present appeal.
8. Admittedly, the appellant became aware of the
passing of the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017. In fact,
since the appellant was represented before the commercial
court-as the commercial court was dealing objections preferred
by the appellant itself, the appellant should have been aware
of the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017 on the same day
itself. The appellant appears to think that it was the obligation
of-either the respondent, or the Court, to serve a copy of the
impugned judgment upon it on a platter. Despite knowing
about the dismissal of its objections, the appellant was
satisfied by merely addressing the communication on
04.09.2017, that too after the period of limitation of preferring
2
the present appeal had expired, to its counsel to obtain a copy
of the impugned judgment.
9. Even if the story of the appellant were to be
believed that the copy of the judgment was not provided by
the counsel, the appellant thereafter blissfully forgot about the
consequences which would flow from the dismissal of its
objections to the arbitral award, and did not take any step
whatsoever till it received the notice in the execution case
preferred by the respondent. This is gross negligence and
dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the appellant,
who were entrusted with the task of dealing with the case.
10. Mr. Patni submits that the appellant is a public
corporation, and public money is involved. He submits that the
impugned award and the impugned judgment are both laconic.
11. The fact that the appellant is a public corporation,
and public money is involved, places a high degree of duty on
the officers as they are expected to discharge the public trust
to safeguard public money, in public interest. That cannot be a
reason to condone the immense delay of 908 days in preferring
the present appeal. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, a swift resolution of the dispute is the underlying theme.
12. It is for this reason that the period of limitation
prescribed for preferring objections to the arbitral award has
been strictly laid down to be three months and plus thirty days,
at the most, and no more under any circumstances.
13. It cannot be that for preferring objections to the
award there is a strict period of limitation prescribed, while, for
preferring an appeal from a judgment dealing with the
objections under Section 34 of the Act, the condonation of
delay can be construed liberally.
14. Mr. Patni submits that the appellants have also filed
a supplementary affidavit to state that action would be taken
against the concerned persons. That does not explain the delay
3
in filing the present appeal. The respondent is entitled to see
the end of the proceedings, and to receive its dues as
determined after such a long drawn battle. At the same time,
we are of the view that responsibility for inaction/lapses should
be fixed, and recovery should be made from all such officers,
who are responsible for the impugned judgment not being
challenged within the period of limitation, so as to mitigate the
loss that the appellants claim to have suffered on account of
the said failure.
15. Since, we are not inclined to condone the delay of
908 days in preferring the appeal, the appeal is dismissed as
barred by limitation.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 2nd November, 2022
SS/SK
