AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
On the last occasion, adjournment was sought by the appellant by stating that he would like to settle their disputes with the respondents.
Mr. Patni states that settlement talks have failed on the quantum that the appellant is willing to pay and the respondent is willing to accept. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the present matter.
By filing Delay Condonation Application No.IA/2/2022, the appellants seek condonation of delay of 908 days in preferring the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment dated 31.05.2017 rendered by the Commercial Court dismissing the objections preferred by the appellants under Section 34of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of the arbitral award dated 25.08.2015.
In the application filed to seek condonation of delay, the appellants admit that the appellants learnt of the passing of the award on 12.06.2017, when they received the caveat preferred by the respondent. The appellants have sought to justify the delay by stating that the Senior Accounts Officer/Material Management sent a communication dated 04.09.2017 to the appellants’ counsel at Dehradun requesting him to supply a copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017.
It is further stated that in spite of the said letter, no copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017 was received by the appellants and for want of a copy of the said judgment further action for challenging the judgment dated 31.05.2017 could not be taken.
The appellant states that he had received a copy of the Execution Case No. 62 of 2019 preferred by the respondent for the first time on 10.08.2022. Even with the execution case, copy of the judgment dated 31.05.2017 was not annexed.
The aforesaid explanation is completely bereft of merit and there is no worthwhile or reasonable justification, whatsoever, offered by the appellant for the immense delay of 908 days in preferring the present appeal.
Admittedly, the appellant became aware of the passing of the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017. In fact, since the appellant was represented before the commercial court-as the commercial court was dealing objections preferred by the appellant itself, the appellant should have been aware of the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2017 on the same day itself. The appellant appears to think that it was the obligation of-either the respondent, or the Court, to serve a copy of the impugned judgment upon it on a platter. Despite knowing about the dismissal of its objections, the appellant was satisfied by merely addressing the communication on 04.09.2017, that too after the period of limitation of preferring the present appeal had expired, to its counsel to obtain a copy of the impugned judgment.
Even if the story of the appellant were to be believed that the copy of the judgment was not provided by the counsel, the appellant thereafter blissfully forgot about the consequences which would flow from the dismissal of its objections to the arbitral award, and did not take any step whatsoever till it received the notice in the execution case preferred by the respondent. This is gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the officers of the appellant, who were entrusted with the task of dealing with the case.
Mr. Patni submits that the appellant is a public corporation, and public money is involved. He submits that the impugned award and the impugned judgment are both laconic.
The fact that the appellant is a public corporation, and public money is involved, places a high degree of duty on the officers as they are expected to discharge the public trust to safeguard public money, in public interest. That cannot be a reason to condone the immense delay of 908 days in preferring the present appeal. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a swift resolution of the dispute is the underlying theme.
It is for this reason that the period of limitation prescribed for preferring objections to the arbitral award has been strictly laid down to be three months and plus thirty days, at the most, and no more under any circumstances.
It cannot be that for preferring objections to the award there is a strict period of limitation prescribed, while, for preferring an appeal from a judgment dealing with the objections under Section 34 of the Act, the condonation of delay can be construed liberally.
Mr. Patni submits that the appellants have also filed a supplementary affidavit to state that action would be taken against the concerned persons. That does not explain the delay in filing the present appeal. The respondent is entitled to see the end of the proceedings, and to receive its dues as determined after such a long drawn battle. At the same time, we are of the view that responsibility for inaction/lapses should be fixed, and recovery should be made from all such officers, who are responsible for the impugned judgment not being challenged within the period of limitation, so as to mitigate the loss that the appellants claim to have suffered on account of the said failure.
Since, we are not inclined to condone the delay of 908 days in preferring the appeal, the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.