Uttarakhand High Court
State Of Uttarakhand vs M/S Hillways Construction Pvt. Ltd on 10 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 186 OF 2024
10TH MAY, 2024
State of Uttarakhand .....Appellant.
Versus
M/s Hillways Construction Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned
Standing Counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The State has come up in the appeal against the order
dated 28.02.2023, passed by the learned Commercial Court,
whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator has been upheld.
2. At this stage, a reference can be made to an order
passed by this Court in AO No. 406 of 2022, "State of
Uttarakhand & others Vs. Sandesh Kumar and connected
matters", dated 21.03.2024, where on account of the delay, the
appeal filed by the State has been dismissed simply on the ground
that the provisions of Limitation Act are to be followed very strictly
in the arbitration proceedings.
3. One such judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
was rendered in Appeal from Order No. 127 of 2021, "State of
Uttarakhand & others Vs M/s Hillways Constructions
Company Pvt. Ltd.", decided on 07.03.2022, wherein after
examining the provisions of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial
Courts Act, which only provides condonation of delay of 30 days
and 60 days, the application for condonation of delay of 85 days
was dismissed, taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources
Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs Borse Brothers
Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460, wherein in
Para 63 it has been held as under:-
"Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal
sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the
Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the
Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the
Limitation Act or section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a
delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be
condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case
in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a
negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the
discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that
the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have
acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the
first party's inaction, negligence or laches."
4. In the present case, the delay is of 345 days, and
keeping in view the detailed judgment passed by this Court and no
case for condoning the delay is made out, the appeal is dismissed
accordingly.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 10th May, 2024
NISHANT
