Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs M/S Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers on 27 January, 2021
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 782 of 2019 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Respondent :- M/S Satish Chand Shivhare And Brothers Counsel for Appellant :- Nimai Dass Counsel for Respondent :- Vishal Khandelwal,Prakash Chandra Gupta Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
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 Date :- 27.1.2021 Abhilash