Mere Attempt To Cloak Laissez Faire Attitude: Allahabad HC Rejects GDA's Plea To Condone 966 Days Delay In Filing Appeal U/S 37 A & C Act

The Court criticised the Development Authority for its lack of diligence and failure to act within the prescribed time frame.

The Court was hearing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 arising out of an order passed under Section 34 of the Act.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed, “It is clear that this appeal has been filed with a delay of 966 days. The filing of this appeal is a mere attempt to cloak the laissez-faire attitude taken by the appellant.”

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the Appellant Ghaziabad Development Authority has submitted that in October 2019 Dussehra vacations, while the office of the advocate for the Appellant was being shifted, the file of the instant case was misplaced. The advocate for the Appellant further states that the missing of file only came to light after receipt of a reminder letter from the Appellant. Having failed to locate the file, the advocate for the appellant sent an email for the issuance of fresh certified copies of the impugned judgment and order.

The Court noted that there is an inordinate delay of 966 days in filing this appeal under Section 37.

The Court further noted that the issue with regard to filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is no longer res integra as the same has been settled by the Supreme Court.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in 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 and quoted, “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(1A) 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.”

The Court further mentioned the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and others v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) and observed, “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 appellants as a matter of right to be entitled to condonation of delay where no proper explanation was provided by the them.”

The Court said that the Arbitration Act being 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 the delay.

The Court said that in the decision of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) By L.Rs. and others (supra) it was observed that the discretionary power is only to be exercised when sufficient cause is made out and compelling reasons are provided for condonation of delay

The bench said that in the present case, no reason is provided to the Court to condone the delay. As per the Court, it is crystal clear that the appellant has acted in a lackadaisical manner.

The Court rejected the application for condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Cause Title: Ghaziabad Development Authority v. M/S S.P.G. Infra Projects (Pvt) Limited

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocate Rohan Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Abhinay Bhattacharya, Rudraksh Gupta and Udit Chandra

Click here to read/download Judgment