State of U.P. And 2 Others Vs Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and two other appellants under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against an order dated 26 April 2018 passed by the District Judge, Agra, on objections under Section 34 of the Act. The appeal was reported to have been filed with a delay of 337 days. The principal issue was whether such delay could be condoned under the applicable law of limitation governing arbitration appeals.
The Court examined the affidavit accompanying the delay-condonation application and found that it did not disclose the date on which the order dated 26 April 2018 had been served. The affidavit nevertheless stated that legal opinion concerning that order had been sought on 9 May 2018. The judgment also recorded that the appeal was first presented before the High Court on 9 July 2019, more than one year after the relevant order had come to the appellants’ knowledge. The judgment contains an internal date inconsistency concerning 9 May 2019, which has been left unchanged in the reproduced Full Text.
The High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s N.V. International v. State of Assam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 109, which followed Union of India v. Varindera Construction Ltd., SLP (C) No. 23155 of 2013, decided on 17 September 2018. As reproduced in the judgment, the Supreme Court had applied a 90-day statutory appeal period together with a further grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, having regard to the legislative objective of expeditious resolution of arbitration disputes.
Applying that authority, and noting that the State had not shown any contrary law, the Allahabad High Court held that the appeal was wholly beyond the prescribed limitation period and beyond the time available for condonation. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The Court did not examine the substantive merits of the underlying arbitration dispute or the District Judge’s decision on the Section 34 objections.
Cases Discussed
- M/s N.V. International Vs. The State of Assam & Ors., (2020) 2 SCC 109 (Supreme Court) — Followed; the High Court applied the Supreme Court’s approach to the outer period for condonation of delay in appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Union of India Vs. Varindera Construction Ltd., SLP (C) No. 23155 of 2013, decided on 17.09.2018 (Supreme Court) — Earlier decision followed in N.V. International and referred to by the High Court in determining limitation.
- Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul & Ors. (Supreme Court; citation not stated in the supplied judgment) — Mentioned within the quoted passage from N.V. International concerning the additional grace period.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Jagdiesh Mishra, learned counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 37(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the District Judge, Agra, on objections filed under Section 34 of the Act.
3. Present appeal is reported to have been filed beyond time by 337 days. The affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application filed alongwith the present appeal does not disclose the date of service of the order dated 26.04.2018. However, it has been stated in paragraph no.2 of that affidavit that a legal opinion was sought with respect to the aforesaid order on 09.05.2018. Thus, certified copy of the order dated 26.04.2018 must have been in the hands and knowledge of the appellants prior to 09.05.2019. Thus, limitation began to run from before 09.05.2019. The appeal was first presented before this Court on 09.07.2019 that is more than 1 year after service of the order dated 26.04.2018.
4. In M/s N.V. International Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.; (2020) 2 SCC 109, the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. Varindera Construction Ltd. passed in SLP (C) No. 23155 of 2013, decided on 17.09.2018. Following that decision, the Supreme Court has observed as under:
“5. We may only add that what we have done in the aforesaid judgment is to add to the period of 90 days, which is provided by statute for filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by following Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul & Ors. (supra), as also having regard to the object of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes which was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the 1996 Act, and which has been strengthened from time to time by amendments made thereto. The present delay being beyond 120 days is not liable, therefore, to be condoned.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
5. In view of the facts noted above and no contrary law having been shown by the State, the present appeal is wholly beyond limitation prescribed. The delay is beyond time of condonation.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Order
