2018 (5) TMI 1939 - HC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay of 65 of days in filing - Time limitation - grant of Arbitral award - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT - A careful reading of the application would show that the application is highly casual in nature, it lacks material particulars and does not disclose sufficient cause for condoning the delay. While considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the period of delay is not the criteria. A short delay may not be condoned in the absence of an acceptable explanation while a large delay may be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory. Courts cannot lose track of the fact that normally after the expiry of the period, the right to sue extinguishes and the other side acquires a right which should not be usually disturbed as it would cause injustice to the opposite party. In this case, the application seeking condonation of delay is completely silent as to when the certified copy of the impugned judgment was received and the causes for the delay in filing the present appeal. Reading of the application would show that delay was caused on account of times spent in seeking opinion from some counsel - This in our view cannot be treated as sufficient grounds as no details have been provided and only a bald statement has been made. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation, it cannot be said that the delay was caused due to bonafide reasons and not on account of negligence or inaction. The Court cannot lose track of the fact that the appellant is not an illiterate litigant but a company which admittedly has its own legal department which is evident from reading para 2 of the application. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Condonation of delay sought by the appellant - Whether delay caused due to bona-fide reasons or negligence - Application lacking material particulars - Legal standards for condonation of delay - Applicability of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Judicial interpretation of delay in filing appeals - Comparison with previous legal precedents.

Analysis:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order dismissing objections to an award. The appellant sought condonation of a 65-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing the delay to a corporate decision-making process involving legal department review and higher management approval. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and not due to negligence. The appellant relied on a legal precedent regarding the explanation of each day's delay not being mandatory. The respondent opposed the application, claiming insufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

The Court highlighted the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, emphasizing speedy resolution of commercial disputes. The appellant argued for a lenient view due to the strong merits of the case. Judicial precedents were cited regarding the liberal approach to condonation of delay, emphasizing the need for substantial justice and absence of gross negligence. However, the Court found the appellant's delay condonation application lacking in detail, material particulars, and a sufficient cause for the delay.

The Court referenced a Supreme Court case analyzing delay condonation in government department applications, emphasizing the need for acceptable explanations for delays. The Court differentiated the present private company case from the government department scenario, focusing on the sufficiency of grounds for condonation. It was noted that the application lacked specifics on when the impugned judgment's copy was received and the causes for the delay. The Court emphasized that seeking counsel's opinion cannot be a standalone reason without detailed explanation. The Court concluded that the application did not provide satisfactory grounds for condonation, considering the appellant's legal department's capability. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to being time-barred.