Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

39. The delay in the present case is of 1040 days. It is not as if minor delay is sought to be condoned, and therefore, this Court is required to consider the explanation given in the applications for condonation of delay. As noted hereinabove, the main ground while seeking condonation of delay is that the advocates for the applicant / appellant GSL, due to an inadvertent error, failed to file the said two appeals at the time when the remaining eight appeals were filed on behalf of GSL. The record does show that the aforesaid eight appeals were indeed filed within the period of limitation. The pleadings were completed and the appeals were to be taken up for final hearing. It is at this stage that when convenience compilations were being prepared to assist this Court that the advocates for GSL realized that the aforementioned two appeals had not been actually filed. It is in this context that the explanation pertaining to 'oversight' and 'inadvertent error' has to be appreciated. It is specifically stated that the advocates did not intentionally or deliberately hold back filing of the said appeals. This Court is of the ARA38_24.doc opinion that when a group of appeals is to be filed, there can be a human error in failing to file all the appeals at one go. It cannot be said in the present case that GSL held back filing of the two appeals in order to gain something in the process. It is not as if some amounts were due and payable to GSL with interest and longer pendency of the appeals would eventually inure to the benefit of GSL in the context of the interest component. On the contrary, GSL is obliged to make payments and the subject appeals that were filed along with applications for condonation of delay pertained to the very question of interest sought to be raised against SHOFT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the explanation tendered on behalf of GSL smacks of mala fide or that, such applications can be rejected as being without any justification. The Supreme Court, in its judgement in the case of Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supra), has emphasized upon the requirement of speedy resolution of commercial disputes in the context of the Arbitration Act. In the said case, although the delay was only 131 days beyond the 60- day period provided for filing an appeal in the context of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as a matter of fact, the Supreme Court found that there was no explanation worth the name contained in the application for condonation of delay, beyond the usual statements regarding file-pushing and administrative exigencies. It is significant that in the present case, GSL being a State Authority, has not given the usual 'excuse' of file-pushing in the departments for explaining the delay, but a straight-forward, honest and clear explanation is given as to why only the said two appeals could not be filed within the period of limitation, while all the other eight appeals were admittedly filed within the period of limitation.