The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has dismissed an appeal filed with a delay of 93 days under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that no “sufficient cause” was shown to justify condoning the delay. The Court also issued directions discouraging the practice of impleading arbitrators and presiding officers as party-respondents in appeals, unless specific misconduct is alleged.
Background
The appeal arose from a dispute between UPHSDP and M/s Maruti Construction regarding a construction contract in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The arbitrator had passed an award on 31 January 2021 in favour of the contractor. UPHSDP’s objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was dismissed on limitation grounds by the Commercial Court, Lucknow, on 7 September 2024.
An appeal was later filed under Section 37 of the Act on 22 January 2025 with defects and re-filed on 7 February 2025, resulting in a delay of 93 days beyond the statutory 60-day limitation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
On Impleading Courts and Arbitrators
The Court strongly disapproved the practice of impleading judicial officers and arbitrators as party respondents without necessity. Citing Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur (AIR 1999 SC 976) and Jogendrasinghji Vikaysinhji v. State of Gujarat (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Bench observed:
“It is high time that the practice of impleading judicial officers disposing of civil proceedings as parties… was stopped.”
The Court further held:
“In proceedings under Section 34 or 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitrator or the members of the Arbitral Tribunal are utterly unnecessary parties unless specific personal allegations are levelled against them.”
Accordingly, it directed the deletion of the “Presiding Officer, Commercial Court No. 1, Lucknow” and “Sole Arbitrator Shri P.N. Gupta” from the list of respondents.
Legal Analysis on Limitation
The Bench elaborated on the applicable limitation framework for appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act:
- While the Act does not specify a limitation period, Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act mandates a 60-day period.
- Referring to Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 233), the Court noted that condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is possible but must be applied restrictively.
It reiterated that any delay beyond this period may be condoned only by way of exception and not as a rule, and only in cases involving bona fide conduct without negligence.
On Delay Condonation Application
The Court found that the delay resulted from administrative inefficiency, including delays in obtaining legal opinion and seeking approvals. It held:
“This Court finds that the explanation offered… is broadly in the nature of administrative lethargy… which cannot meet the threshold of ‘sufficient cause’.”
The Bench also noted that the request for a certified copy of the order was made only after the limitation period had expired, disallowing any benefit under Section 12 of the Limitation Act.
Citing Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Court emphasized that government departments are not entitled to preferential treatment in limitation matters.
Final Decision
The Court held:
“We do not consider this an appropriate case for condoning the delay… the above-captioned appeal is held to be time barred and is, accordingly, dismissed.”
It also directed the Registrar General to ensure proper recording of limitation periods in arbitration-related appeals under Section 37.
