Uttarakhand High Court
27Th September vs Thdc India Ltd on 27 September, 2024
2024:UHC:7194-DB
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. 327 OF 2023
27TH SEPTEMBER, 2024
M/s Logic Plus Plus Pvt. Ltd. .....Appellant.
Versus
THDC India Ltd. ....Respondent.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned
counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Ms. Sakshi Singh, proxy
counsel for Mr. Shobhit
Saharia, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri)
The appellant has come up in appeal against
the judgment dated 26.10.2021, passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Commercial, Dehradun in
Arbitration Case No.113 of 2018, as well as the award
dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned sole
Arbitrator.
2. At this stage, a reference can be made to an
order dated 21.03.2024, passed by this Court in Appeal
from Order No.406 of 2022, "State of Uttarakhand &
others vs. Sandesh Kumar" and connected matters,
where on account of the delay, the appeal filed by the
State has been dismissed simply on the ground that the
2024:UHC:7194-DB
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 the Hon'ble Supreme 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 Paragraph
No.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
2024:UHC:7194-DB
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 445 days,
and keeping in view the detailed judgment passed by
this Court and no case for condoning the delay is made
out, the present appeal is dismissed accordingly.
5. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(RITU BAHRI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 27th September, 2024
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd6313360
5ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001,
KUMAR
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C
20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E670C,
cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2024.10.03 10:34:12 +05'30'
