2023 (4) TMI 1394 - HC - Indian Laws

Arbitration appeals dismissed for 23-day delay under Section 37 without sufficient cause or justification

Bombay HC dismissed applications for condonation of delay in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. The applicant failed to provide ... Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - whether the mistake is bonafide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose? - HELD THAT:- Has applicant shown any sufficient cause or has applicant acted not in a negligent manner is something we have to decide by considering the application. In the application, it is stated that on 7th January 2023 the impugned order was passed and the certified copy was applied on 30th January 2023 and delivered on 1st February 2023. No explanation is given for this delay of about 23 days. In paragraph 5, it is simply stated “However, in spite of Applicant/Appellant’s advocate best and sincere efforts, the scrutiny and other connected process could not be completed earlier, the appellant is apologetic for this delay. On merits, the appellant has got a very good case. ” It is also stated that the delay is not deliberate nor intentional. Beyond this, there is no explanation whatsoever to explain why the delay should be condoned. This does not satisfy the requirement of “sufficient cause” being made. Moreover, it is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act and as held by the Apex Court in Executive Engineer V/s. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 1458 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], the object of speedy disposal will be defeated if this Court condones the delay routinely without being satisfied that a sufficient cause is shown. Conclusion - A 'sufficient cause' must be shown to justify condoning delays in filing appeals, particularly in the context of arbitration and commercial disputes, where the objective is to ensure speedy resolution. The interim applications for condonation of delay dismissed, as the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Both interim applications stand dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered by the Bombay High Court in this judgment is whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be condoned. The court examines whether the applicant has demonstrated 'sufficient cause' for the delay, considering the legal framework and precedents governing the condonation of delay in the context of arbitration and commercial disputes.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework for condoning delays is rooted in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for delays to be condoned if 'sufficient cause' is shown. The court references several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., which emphasizes that delays in arbitration appeals should be condoned by exception, not as a rule, to uphold the objective of speedy dispute resolution.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe court interprets 'sufficient cause' as a flexible concept that must be assessed in the context of the statute's objectives. The court highlights that the intent of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to ensure expedited dispute resolution, which necessitates strict adherence to limitation periods unless a compelling justification for delay is provided.Key Evidence and FindingsThe applicant's explanation for the delay was deemed insufficient. The court noted that the impugned order was passed on January 7, 2023, and the certified copy was applied for on January 30, 2023, with no explanation for the 23-day delay in between. The applicant merely stated that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and offered a general apology without providing specific reasons for the delay.Application of Law to FactsThe court applied the legal principles to the facts by assessing whether the applicant had acted in a bona fide manner and whether the delay was excusable. Given the lack of a detailed explanation for the delay, the court determined that the applicant did not meet the threshold of 'sufficient cause.'Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe court considered the applicant's argument that the delay was not deliberate and that the appellant had a strong case on merits. However, the court emphasized that the merits of the case do not justify the condonation of delay without a satisfactory explanation for the delay itself.ConclusionsThe court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the delay, and thus, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. The court reiterated that condoning delays in arbitration appeals should be an exception, not a routine practice, to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning'The obligation is on the party applying for condonation of delay to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause is the cause for which applicant could not be blamed for his or her absence.''The object of speedy disposal will be defeated if this Court condones the delay routinely without being satisfied that a sufficient cause is shown.'Core Principles EstablishedThe judgment reinforces the principle that 'sufficient cause' must be shown to justify condoning delays in filing appeals, particularly in the context of arbitration and commercial disputes, where the objective is to ensure speedy resolution.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe court dismissed the interim applications for condonation of delay, as the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Consequently, the appeal and any pending interim applications were also dismissed.