Government Seeking Belated Approvals Cannot Justify 112-Day Delay In Filing Appeal U/s 37 A&C Act: Delhi HC Dismisses Condonation Of Delay Plea
The Delhi High Court observed that even though in appeals filed by Government authorities, it is necessary to seek requisite approvals before filing such an appeal, this cannot imply that despite these approvals being sought belatedly, the delay should be condoned.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India (UoI) under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging an arbitral award in favour of Besco Limited (Wagon Division) (Company). The Bench dismissed the application seeking condonation of a 112-day delay in filing the appeal after noting that the Government “has treated a commercial matter like the present in a most callous and negligent manner.”
A Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that this Court ought to appreciate that since the appellant is the Government, the appeal could not have been filed without the requisite approvals and therefore, the time spent in getting the said approvals ought to be taken into account while considering its prayer for condonation. In our considered view, even though the learned counsel for the appellant is correct in urging that in appeals filed by Government authorities, it is necessary to seek requisite approvals before filing of any appeal, this cannot imply that despite these approvals being sought belatedly, the delay should be condoned.”
CGSC Arunima Dwivedi appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Anirudh Bakhru represented the Respondent.
The Government filed an appeal assailing the decision by the Single Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the UoI’s challenge to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. The UoI argued that procedural delays and personal challenges faced by its Counsel, including the illness of her father, justified the delay in filing the appeal.
The impugned arbitral award had directed the UoI to make payments in a contractual dispute with the Company.
The High Court noted that “it is not merely the number of days of delay, which would be material for considering the application seeking condonation of delay but it is the sufficiency of reasons for the delay which would be material to determine whether the delay should be condoned.”
The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Government of Maharastra v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd. (2021), wherein it was held that a different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be applied for the Government. The Apex Court summarised the position that condonation of delay in a matter under the Act is permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
Consequently, the Court held that the “explanation furnished by the appellant does not show any sufficient cause whatsoever for condonation of delay of 112 days in filing of the appeal, which was otherwise required to be filed within 60 days as prescribed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act…We, therefore, find no merit in the application seeking condonation of delay which is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal alongwith accompanying applications also stands rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Appeal.
Cause Title: Union Of India v. Besco Limited (Wagon Divison) (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9219-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: CGSC Arunima Dwivedi; Advocates Pinky Panwar and Aakash Pathak
Respondent: Advocate Anirudh Bakhru
