Delay In Filing Appeal Under Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned Mechanically: Bombay High Court
Delay In Filing Appeal Under Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned Mechanically: Bombay High Court
Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan of the Bombay High Court, has ruled that delays in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) should not be condoned in a mechanical manner, as doing so would undermine the very objective of the Arbitration Act, which is to ensure the speedy resolution of disputes.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021), where it was held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act is governed by Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This provides for a 90-day period within which the appeal must be filed. Any delay beyond this period may only be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if a sufficient cause is shown.
The applicant sought condonation of the delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the delay occurred due to internal procedures, with multiple stakeholders involved, and the impugned judgment could not be challenged in time. Additionally, the applicant claimed that transferring the records from Ratnagiri and rebuilding the paper trail had caused the delay.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that the same advocate who handled the case at the District Court had filed the appeal, which was misleading. Therefore, they argued that due to inequitable conduct, the delay should not be condoned.
The court observed that the applicant's case was based on a false premise, as the same advocates had handled both the District Court proceedings and the present appeal. The bench emphasized that state agencies, like the appellant in this case, must be extra cautious in filing appeals, and special treatment could not be granted simply because the appellant was a government entity.
Justice Sundaresan referred to previous judgments by the Supreme Court in Borse Brothers and Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd. (2012), stressing that delay should not be condoned mechanically when the appellant, being fully aware of the case, was responsible for the delay.
The court further observed that under the Supreme Court's ruling in Borse Brothers, the limitation period under Article 116 of the Limitation Act applies, and any appeal must be filed within 90 days. The delay can only be condoned if sufficient cause is demonstrated.
The court emphasized that the Arbitration Act's primary objective is to promote swift dispute resolution, and thus the delay in filing the appeal must be viewed with this in mind. In light of this, the Bombay High Court dismissed the application, ruling that the delay of 124 days in filing the appeal could not be condoned.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the timelines specified in the Arbitration Act and maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process.
