2019 (12) TMI 1515 - SC - Indian Laws

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusion of time as per Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - delay of 189 days from the 90 days that were given under Article 116 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT - The matter is no longer res integra. In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS M/S VARINDERA CONST. LTD 2018 (9) TMI 2037 - SUPREME COURT it was held that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch. What is 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 and Others 1940 (12) TMI 26 - FEDERAL COURT , 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. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court dealt with a case where an Arbitral Award was made by a retired Judge, and a Section 34 petition was rejected by the District Judge. An appeal under Section 37 was filed after a delay of 189 days from the 90 days provided under the Limitation Act. The Court considered the argument that Section 37 does not exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for condonation of delay if a sufficient cause is made out. However, the Court observed that the delay in this case was not condoned as it exceeded the statutory period, emphasizing the importance of speedy resolution of disputes referred to arbitration.

In a previous judgment, the Court had held that any delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 from an application under Section 34 should not be allowed. The Court noted that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, and delays in filing appeals could defeat the statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided promptly. The Court cited the object of speedy resolution of arbitral disputes as a crucial consideration in determining the condonation of delays.

The Court added a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the statutory 90-day period for filing appeals under Section 37, based on legal precedents and the legislative intent behind the Arbitration Act. Since the delay in this case exceeded 120 days, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the need to adhere to the statutory timelines for filing appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to ensure expeditious resolution of disputes referred to arbitration.