Limitation Act | Doesn't Encompass Long Delays, Condonation Only In Exceptional Cases: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Section 37 A&C Petition

The bench dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of four years.

Brief Facts:

The Appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), originating from an order issued under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Notably, the appeal was filed after a significant delay of four years.

The Respondent referred to a precedent set forth in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 460. Drawing from this precedent, the it raised the contention that such a prolonged delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act should not be allowed.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to its decision in National Highway Authority of India Vs. Smt. Sampata Devi and Ors. reported in 2023 (12) ADJ 787, which dealt with similar facts and circumstances. It held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act should typically be filed within 60 days from the date of the order, as prescribed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, in exceptional cases where the specified value is less than INR 3,00,000.00/-, the appeal under Section 37 would be governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act.

Furthermore, the High Court emphasized the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. It noted that while Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act does not explicitly address the condonation of delays beyond the prescribed 60-day period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be invoked, albeit sparingly. It clarified that the term 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not encompass long delays, and condonation can only be granted in exceptional cases where the appellant acted in a bona fide manner and not negligently.

The High Court highlighted that delays in filing appeals could only be tolerated under compelling circumstances where strong justifications are provided. However, in the present case, the High Court found no such compelling reasons to warrant the condonation of the delay.

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation.

Case Title: - State Of U.P. And 5 Others vs Rajveer Singh And Another

Case Number: APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2023.

Advocate for the Appellant: C.S.C.,S.C.

Advocate for the Respondent: Poorva Agarwal, Punit Kumar Gupta.

Click Here To Read/Download Order