TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1600X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant - When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since the Petitioners have failed to show sufficient cause for the condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the Appeal in the High Court. Moreover, there are no grounds for interference with the arbitral award impugned. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court need not be interfered - SLP dismissed. - HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e learned Arbitral Tribunal made and published an award on 17th April 2020, allowing the claim petition filed by the Respondent and holding, inter alia, that the Respondent was entitled to recover Rs. 40,61,264/- from the Petitioners. Each of the issues framed by the Arbitral Tribunal was dealt with by giving cogent reasons. 7. On consideration of materials and/or evidence on record the learned Arbitral Tribunal found that the contract specifically provided for payment for additional or extra work. The Petitioner State failed to cooperate in speedy completion of contract work. Running bills were not paid in time. The final bill was to be prepared by the concerned Engineer of the Public Works Department. The bills were not prepared in time. The Petitioner, State of Uttar Pradesh, had not made excess payment to the Respondent as alleged. The learned Arbitrator also rejected the contention of the Petitioner State that the final payment for the contract of the work had not been made because of want of consent on the part of the Respondent. 8. The Arbitrator rejected the contention of the Petitioner State that it was a condition of the contract that payment in terms of the contract woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 14. The Petitioners, however, filed an appeal against the said judgment and order in the High Court Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 9th July 2019, even though a certified copy of the impugned judgment and order had been received by the Petitioners on 9th May, 2018. The appeal was beyond time by 337 days. 15. The Petitioners filed an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit of one D.K. Singh, posted as Assistant Engineer in the Provincial Division of the Public Works Department, Agra. The relevant paragraphs from the said affidavit are set out hereinbelow: 1. That, the deponent is presently posted as Assistant Engineer, Provincial Division, Public Works Department, Agra and has been authorized to file this affidavit on behalf of Appellants in the abovenoted First Appeal From Order and as such, he is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below. 2. That, after receiving the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the District Judge, Agra Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . and Ors. v. M/S. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers) may be filed before the Hon'ble Court. A true copy of letter dated 09.07.2018 written from the office of Engineer in Chief, Samanya Varg, Public Works Department, Lucknow is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 5 of this affidavit. 7. That the office of Engineer-in-Chief, U.P.P.W.D. Samanya Varg, Lucknow wrote a letter dated 08.10.2018 to the Special Secretary, Public Works Department requesting therein to amend/correct the permission dated 29.08.2018 granted by the Law Department for filing first appeal from order against the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the District Judge, Agra Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 281 of 2010, (State of U.P. and Ors. v. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers). A true copy of letter dated 8.10.2018 written from the office of Engineer-in-Chief, U.P.P.W.D. Samanya Varg, Lucknow is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 6 to this affidavit. 8. That thereafter the Law Department, Government of U.P., Lucknow has corrected/amended the permission dated 29.08.2018 granted earlier vide permission letter dated 01.02.201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. The Government Departments are under an obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that their right to initiate legal proceedings is not extinguished by operation of the law of limitation. A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. 18. As held by this Court in Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81: 9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequate or enough , inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word sufficient embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. *** *** *** 15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning. 23. It is true that the High Court has rejected the appeal on the misconceived ground that delay in filing an appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not condonable beyond 120 days by relying upon a two Judge Bench judgment of this Court in N.V. International v. State of Assam and Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 109, which has since been overruled by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Government of Maharashtr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
