Limitation For Filing An Appeal U/S. 37 A&C Act Is Independent Of Whether Enforcement Proceedings Have Been Instituted Or Not: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court observed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is independent of whether proceedings for enforcement of the impugned order have or have not been instituted.
The Court rejected the Union of India’s application for condonation of delay for an arbitration appeal observing that the explanation for the delay was in the nature of “administrative lethargy of the Government machinery.” The Union had filed the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), against an interim order of the Arbitral Tribunal (Tribunal). Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal while holding that it was barred by the delay of 132 days.
A Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan observed, “The limitation for filing of an appeal is independent of whether proceedings for enforcement of the impugned order have or have not been instituted. The Union was obliged to follow up with its counsel diligently, to ensure that the appeal is filed within the period of limitation.”
Advocate D.K. Mishra appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate R.P. Singh represented the respondent.
In the application, the Union had sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the Tribunal's impugned order, which disposed of two applications under Section 17 of the Act.
The Tribunal allowed Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd’s (respondent) application for release of performance bank guarantee and advance bank guarantee in part. In contrast, the Union’s application for an extension of the bank guarantee was rejected.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd (2021) wherein the Court found a delay of 131 days beyond the 60-day limitation period, to be unexplained “beyond the usual file pushing and administrative exigency.”
In light of the same, the Court noted that a delay of 132 days meant that the appeal was filed “after lapse of more than three times the prescribed limitation period.”
“The explanation offered in the present case, is broadly in the nature of administrative lethargy of the Government machinery. The Supreme Court has expressly held that the Government is not entitled to any special consideration on that account,” the Court remarked.
The Bench explained that the decision in Borse Brothers (supra) emphasised the objective of speedy resolution of disputes by arbitration, and explained that the Court’s consideration of an application for condonation of delay in filing of an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, must be informed by an “overarching objective.”
Consequently, the Court stated, “I, therefore, do not consider this an appropriate case for condonation of the long delay of 132 days in filing of the appeal. The application is therefore rejected. Consequently, the appeal is barred by delay and stands dismissed, alongwith all pending applications.”
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the application.
Cause Title: Union of India v. Rishabh Constructions Pvt Ltd
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R.P. Singh, Anant Vijay, Yash Aggarwal and Aman Singh
Respondents: Advocate D.K. Mishra
