The Allahabad High Court while dismissing an appeal said that the Arbitration Act being a legislation for speedy redressal, the delay in filing the appeal can only be allowed if the appellant makes out a very strong case and explains the reasons for delay.
A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by National Highways Authority Of India.
This is an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising out of an order passed under Section 34 of the Act.
It is to be noted that the application filed by the appellant before the Court below under Section 34 of the Act was also delayed by four months and the same was dismissed as time barred.
There is furthermore an inordinate delay of 552 days in filing this appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
In M/s N.V International v State of Assam & Ors reported in 2020 (2) SCC 109 [Coram:- Rohinton Fali Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ] and Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 [Coram :- Rohinton Fali Nariman, B.R Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ] the Supreme Court has stated that such a delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act cannot be allowed, the Court noted.
The Court said that,
The issue with regard to filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is no longer resolved as the same has been settled by the Supreme Court.
In fact, the Supreme Court while upholding the judgement of the High Court went on to say that just because other persons have been granted relief in other matters that by itself would not be a ground for condoning the delay. The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of taking lenient view and stated that just because the Courts, on earlier occasions, had taken lenient view would not entitle the petitioner as a matter of right to be entitled to condonation of delay where no proper explanation was provided by the petitioner.
The Couer observed that,
In the case, the reasons provided for condonation of delay are without assigning any specific reasons for the delay. No documents have been provided for the reasons given in the said affidavit. Furthermore, the only ground that has been taken for condonation of delay is that the counsel, who was appearing before the Arbitrator, did not inform the Department regarding order dated July 12, 2022 and it was only when the respondent made an application on December 8, 2023 for compensation, the appellant wrote a letter dated January 6, 2024 for obtaining certified copy of the order. Thereafter, legal advice was sought and finally on January 19, 2024 a decision was taken for filing the appeal.
This explanation does not cut any ice whatsoever as the law of limitation as explained in the judgments and elaborated in the judgment in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs and others (supra) penned by Pankaj Mithal, J is that the discretionary power is only to be exercised when sufficient cause is made out and compelling reasons are provided for condonation of delay. In this case, one does not find any such reason provided which would enable the Court to condone the delay.
“In fact, it is crystal clear that the appellant has acted in a lackadaisical manner from the very inception as it appears from the records that the application under Section 34 of the Act of the appellant was also dismissed as time barred on the ground that the filing of the appeal was delayed by four months. It is clear that in spite of the same, the appeal has been filed once again belatedly with a delay of 552 days. The filing of the appeal is a mere attempt to cloak the laissez faire attitude taken by the appellant from the very beginning”, the Court further observed while dismissing the appeal.
In the light of the above, the Court rejected the delay condonation application.