9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the order modifying the award by the District Judge. - Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Analysis: The plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the order modifying the award by the District Judge. However, the officer reported that the appeal was 79 days beyond the limitation period. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of the delay. The appellant argued that the delay was not deliberate but caused due to the complex procedure involving obtaining sanction from the State Government. The appellant cited relevant case law to support the argument that substantial justice should prevail despite the delay. The respondent vehemently opposed the application for condonation of delay, arguing that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The respondent relied on a previous case where similar arguments were dismissed by the court. The respondent highlighted the importance of proving sufficient cause for the delay, especially in cases involving government departments. The court emphasized that the government must establish an overall cause for the delay and cannot escape accountability simply because it is a government entity. The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, dismissed the application for condonation of delay. The court held that the appellant failed to provide material particulars explaining the cause of the delay adequately. The court concluded that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time and, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The judgment underscores the importance of providing specific and justifiable reasons for seeking condonation of delay, especially in cases involving government entities.
|
