In The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. The General Public & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed an order dated November 6, 2026, wherein, it upheld the order by Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sunil Dutta Mishra. It concluded:"We do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
Earlier, in The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Industries Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. The General Public & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Mishra passed a 6-page long order dated September 30, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"8. In the facts of the present case, we have no iota of doubt that the appellants have not shown their bonafides in the matter of filing of appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. We also find that during this period, the award holder has acquired some equitable rights as the execution case has proceeded much ahead. 9. There being no cogent and sufficient ground and the delay being a huge period of 1108 days for which no bonafide explanations have come, we find no merit in the application. This application is dismissed. 10. As a result of the dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay, the appeal cannot be entertained. It is dismissed accordingly."
By filing the application before the High Court, the appellants had sought condonation of delay of 1108 days in filing of the commercial appeal. The facts were not in dispute. These appellants were parties to the arbitration award dated August 20, 2014 rendered by the sole Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator found the appellants liable to pay the following amounts:- "i). Rs.28,90,168/- (Twenty eight lacs ninety thousand one hundred sixty eight only) as dues towards total advance money paid by the claimant to the Mill authority with interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of 14.05.2000 till the date of realization. ii). Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lacs) only towards damages but without interest. iii). Rs.70,000/- (Seventy thousand) only as cost of litigation including amount of court fee. iv) Rs.1,80,000/- toward payment of fee by the claimant to the Arbitrator. Failing which the claimant/petitioner shall be entitled to recover the award amount through due process of law as provided in the Act with interest @ 18% P.A. on total award amount from the date of this award till final realization."
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the award, the appellants had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 giving rise to Misc. Case No.58 of 2014 in the court of Principal District Judge, Patna. They were aggrieved against the part of the arbitral award. The respondent/award holder filed an Execution Case No.03 of 2016 for enforcement of the arbitral award and in course of the said execution proceeding, the Commercial Court passed coercive order dated June 17, 2025 whereby and whereunder the Collectorate, Madhubani was attached.
It appeared to the High Court that the Misc. Case No.58 of 2014 was later on withdrawn with liberty, as informed to the High Court and Misc. Case No. 10 of 2016 was filed before the Principal District Judge-cum-Commercial Court, Madhubani for setting aside of the award. The said Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 was dismissed on June 3, 2023. It was evident that the execution proceeding was already going on during pendency of the Misc. Case No.10 of 2016. Therefore, the appellants were fully aware of the likelihood of passing of the coercive orders in the execution case if the order dated June 3, 2023 rejecting the Misc. Case No.10 of 2016 was not challenged to obtain an appropriate order from the appellate court, still no step was taken for filing of the appeal.
On perusal of the application seeking condonation of delay, we have noticed that there has been delay in processing the files at various levels in the office of the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Madhubani, Deputy Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Bihar and the District Legal Cell, Madhubani.
From the statements made in paragraph '4' of the application, it appeared to the High Court that there had been a delay on the part of the respondents-appellants in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment/order dated June 3, 2023.
The Government Pleader, Madhubani had already advised the appellants regarding necessity of filing of an appeal, vide his Letter No.39/GP Office, Madhubani dated October 12, 2023. Initially, some communications were made within a reasonable period but the files got stuck in the office of the General Manager, DIC, Madhubani and the Joint Secretary, Department of Industries, Bihar. The statements made in paragraph '13' of the application showed that the Joint Secretary, Department of Industries had initiated the process for appointment of a new Liquidator of the appellant no.3 after it went into the liquidation on November 9, 2022. Some scattered statements were made in the application to explain the delay but the High Court found that there was no cogent and sufficient ground stated in the application to condone such a huge delay of 1108 days in filing of the commercial appeal.
Justice Prasad observed: "It is well settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 that the delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days 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." The paragraph '63' of the judgment in the case of Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd reads:- "63. 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(1-A) 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."
No comments:
Post a Comment