9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 1458 - SC - Indian LawsApplication of section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by the scheme of the Commercial Courts Act - judgment in N.V. International v. State of Assam 2019 (12) TMI 1515 - SUPREME COURT lays down the law correctly or not - HELD THAT - Firstly, as has correctly been argued by Shri Shroti, N.V. International does not notice the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act at all and can be said to be per incuriam on this count. Secondly, it is also correct to note that the period of 90 days plus 30 days and not thereafter mentioned in section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot now apply, the limitation period for filing of appeals under the Commercial Courts Act being 60 days and not 90 days. Thirdly, the argument that absent a provision curtailing the condonation of delay beyond the period provided in section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act would also make it clear that any such bodily lifting of the last part of section 34(3) into section 37 of the Arbitration Act would also be unwarranted - Shri Navare s argument cannot be accepted that this is a mere casus omissus which can be filled in by the Court. The difference between interpretation and legislation is sometimes a fine one, as it has repeatedly been held that judges do not merely interpret the law but also create law. Reliance upon the judgment of this Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, 2018 (11) TMI 1529 - SUPREME COURT on the doctrine of unbreakability when applied to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, also does not carry the matter much further, as the question is whether this doctrine can be bodily lifted and engrafted onto an appeal provision that has no cut-off point beyond which delay cannot be condoned. Thus, N.V. International has been wrongly decided and is therefore overruled. Application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a uniform 60-day period of limitation - HELD THAT - Reading the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act as a whole, it is clear that when section 37 of the Arbitration Act is read with either Article 116 or 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, the object and context provided by the aforesaid statutes, read as a whole, is the speedy disposal of appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. To read section 5 of the Limitation Act consistently with the aforesaid object, it is necessary to discover as to what the expression sufficient cause means in the context of condoning delay in filing appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party s inaction, negligence or laches. There is a long delay of 131 days beyond the 60- day period provided for filing an appeal under section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. There is no explanation worth the name contained in the condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file-pushing and administrative exigency. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment in N.V. International v. State of Assam lays down the law correctly. 2. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in relation to the Arbitration Act. 4. The scope of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. 5. The treatment of government delays in filing appeals. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the judgment in N.V. International v. State of Assam lays down the law correctly: The Supreme Court examined whether the judgment in N.V. International correctly applied the law concerning the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Court noted that N.V. International did not consider the Commercial Courts Act and thus was per incuriam. The Court observed that the 90 days plus 30 days limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act should not be applied to Section 37 appeals. The Court concluded that N.V. International was wrongly decided and overruled it. 2. Applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The Court analyzed Section 43 of the Arbitration Act, which makes the Limitation Act applicable to arbitration proceedings, and Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act, which prescribe limitation periods for appeals. The Court affirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, allowing for the condonation of delay, but emphasized that such condonation should be an exception and not the rule. 3. Interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in relation to the Arbitration Act: The Court examined the interplay between the Commercial Courts Act and the Arbitration Act. Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act prescribes a 60-day limitation period for appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that this period is uniform and overrides the periods mentioned in Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act. The Court also noted that the Commercial Courts Act aims for the speedy resolution of commercial disputes, which must be considered when applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. The scope of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act: The Court emphasized that the expression "sufficient cause" in Section 5 must be interpreted in the context of the objective of the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, which is the speedy resolution of disputes. The Court held that long delays beyond the prescribed periods should not be condoned unless there is a bona fide and exceptional reason. The Court stressed that condonation of delay should be an exception rather than the rule, especially in commercial matters. 5. The treatment of government delays in filing appeals: The Court reiterated that government entities are not entitled to a different standard for condonation of delay. The Court referred to the judgment in Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., which held that the government cannot claim a separate period of limitation and must provide a plausible and acceptable explanation for any delay. The Court emphasized that procedural red tape and administrative inefficiency are not valid reasons for condoning delays. Judgment Analysis: - Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 665 of 2021: The Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 131 days beyond the 60-day period prescribed by the Commercial Courts Act. The Court found no sufficient cause for the delay and noted that the appellant did not approach the court bona fide. - Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15278 of 2020: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, which had incorrectly relied on Consolidated Engg. instead of N.V. International. The Court found that the explanation for the 75-day delay beyond the 60-day period was insufficient. - Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 18079 of 2020: The Court dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 227 days in filing and 200 days in refiling, finding no sufficient cause for such a long delay. Conclusion: The Supreme Court overruled N.V. International, clarified the application of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Arbitration Act, and emphasized the importance of the speedy resolution of disputes. The Court held that condonation of delay should be an exception and not the rule, especially in commercial matters, and reiterated that government entities are not entitled to a different standard for condonation of delay.
|
