Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 3 Others vs Ramnath Bansal (Prop.) And 2 Others on 4 January, 2021
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 60 of 2020 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Respondent :- Ramnath Bansal (Prop.) And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jagdish Mishra Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Ref:- Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2020
1. Heard Sri Jagdish Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.
2. The delay of 322 days has been explained on account of certain administrative reasons as also on account of Holi vacation in the year 2020 and the outspread of pandemic Covid-19 resulting in lockdown and other difficulties. In any case, according to the explanation furnished in paragraph no.13 of the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the deponent of that affidavit could not pursue the matter till 07.09.2020. No explanation has been offered for further delay caused beyond 07.09.2020 till the appeal was actually filed on 03.12.2020.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Agra in Arbitration Miscellaneous Case No.1951 of 2018 (State of U.P. & Others Vs. M/s. Bansal Stone Supplier).
4. Apart from delay, perusal of the impugned order reveals that undisputedly the application under Section 34 of the Act had been filed by the present appellants on 19.11.2018 with reference to the arbitration award dated 13.04.2016. The said application had been filed more than two years and seven months after the award. The mandatory period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act is three months with a further stipulation permitting condonation of delay of three months, subject to court concerned being satisfied. The learned court below has considered this aspect of the matter and thereafter rejected the objection filed under Section 34 of the Act on the reasoning that the same were filed much beyond the period of six months stipulated under Section 34(3) of the Act.
5. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that though the learned court below could not have condoned the delay beyond the period of three months yet this Court sitting in appeal may do so in view of language of Section 37(1)(c) of the Act.
6. The submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel is found to be misconceived inasmuch as the provision of Section-37(1)(c) of the Act only creates a right to appeal against the order rejecting the objection filed under Section-34 of the Act. It nowhere creates a power that may be exercised by this Court to condone the delay beyond the period of three months - in filing of objection under Section 34 of the Act.
7. Insofar as it is not disputed that the objection under Section-34 of the Act had been filed with the delay exceeding three months, there is no error found in the order passed by the learned court below.
8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed both on account of delay and also for reason noted above.
Order Date :- 4.1.2021 S.Chaurasia