# State of U.P. & Ors v. Rajveer Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-18
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-rajveer-singh-anr-54573
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

(A) Arbitration Law - Delay in Filing Appeal -
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 34 & 37 - Commercial Courts Act,
2015 - Section 13(1A), Limitation Act, 1963
- Section 5, Articles 116, 117 - Sufficient
cause - Speedy redressal - Arbitration Act
being a legislation for speedy redressal, the
delay in filing the appeal can only be
allowed if the appellant makes out a very
strong case and explains the reasons for
delay. (Para 2-7)

Appeal filed under Section 37 with four-year
delay - challenging an order passed under
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 34 of the Act - respondents contested,
citing relevant case laws. (Para 2 -4)

HELD: - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation
due to substantial delay without sufficient cause.
(Para -7)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Rajveer Singh & Anr.
31

50. The challenges associated with
delay
in
arbitration
proceedings
are
multifaceted and require a comprehensive
approach to address. One of the key areas
that warrant attention is the need for
reforms aimed to expediting the arbitration
process and reducing the backlog of cases.
This may involve measures such as the
establishment
of
specialized
arbitration
divisions in courts, and the implementation of
procedural
reforms
to
streamline
the
arbitration process. In conclusion, the case
under discussion serves as a stark reminder of
the challenges and shortcomings inherent in
the arbitration landscape of India. While
arbitration holds immense potential as a faster
and more efficient alternative to litigation, the
prevalence of inordinate delays underscores
the urgent need for reforms and corrective
measures. By addressing the systemic issues
contributing
to
delays
in
arbitration
proceedings and promoting a culture of
timely and effective dispute resolution, India
can unlock the full potential of arbitration and
ensure access to justice for all parties
involved.

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION

51. In light of the same, it is apparent
that the award of Rs.6,22,268/- along with
interest in favour of the Respondent on
account
of
repairing
of
defects
in
transformer was in violation of Section
28(3) of the Act as it stood before the
Amendment Act, 2015. Since the award of
the claim was against the clear provisions
of the contract, therefore, this Court in
exercise of its power under Section 37 of
the Act, sets aside the order dated January
12, 2012, passed by the District Judge,
Agra, in Arbitration Case No. 406 of 2006,
under Section 34 of the Act only to the
extent
that
upholds
the
award
of
Rs.6,22,268/- along with interest to the
Respondent on account of costs incurred
towards repairing the defects in the
transformer. Consequently, the arbitral
award dated July 31, 2006, is also set aside
to that limited extent. I make it clear that
the rest of the arbitral award stands as it is.

52. The instant arbitration appeal is
disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

53. There shall be no order as to the
costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 31
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Appeal U/S 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act
1996 Defective No. 619 of 2023

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajveer Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
C.S.C., S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Poorva Agarwal, Sri Punit Kumar Gupta

(A) Arbitration Law - Delay in Filing Appeal -
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 34 & 37 - Commercial Courts Act,
2015 - Section 13(1A), Limitation Act, 1963
- Section 5, Articles 116, 117 - Sufficient
cause - Speedy redressal - Arbitration Act
being a legislation for speedy redressal, the
delay in filing the appeal can only be
allowed if the appellant makes out a very
strong case and explains the reasons for
delay. (Para 2-7)

Appeal filed under Section 37 with four-year
delay - challenging an order passed under
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 34 of the Act - respondents contested,
citing relevant case laws. (Para 2 -4)

HELD: - Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation
due to substantial delay without sufficient cause.
(Para -7)

Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Govt. of Maha. (Water Resources Dept.)
Represented by Exe. Engineer Vs M/s Borse
Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021)
6 SCC 460

2. N.H.A.I. Vs Smt. Sampata Devi & ors., 2023
(12) ADJ 787

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. Heard counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties.

2. This is an appeal under Section 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') arising
out of an order passed under Section 34 of the
Act.

3. There is a substantial delay of four
years in filing this appeal under Section 37 of
the Act.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents relied upon a judgement in
Government
of
Maharashtra
(Water
Resources Department) Represented by
Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers
Engineers
&
Contractors
Pvt.
Ltd.
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460 to submit that
such a delay in filing an appeal under Section
37 of the Act cannot be allowed. Relevant
paragraph relied upon by counsel appearing on
behalf of respondents is delineated below :-

"61. 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(1A) 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."

5. A coordinate Bench of this Court in
National Highway Authority of India Vs.
Smt. Sampata Devi and Ors. reported in
2023 (12) ADJ 787, in similar facts and
circumstances, discussed in great detail a
catena of judgements of the Supreme Court
and has come to the following conclusion :-

"(44) In view of the authoritative
Judgments of the Apex Court in M/s Borse
Brothers Engineers & Contractors (supra),
it must be held that an appeal under
Section
37
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 should be filed
within 60 days from the date of the order as
per Section 13(1A) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015. However, in those rare
cases where the specified value is for a sum
less than INR 3,00,000.00 then the appeal
under Section 37 would be governed by
Articles 116 and 117 of the Schedule of the
Limitation Act, as the case may be.

(45) Further, Section 5 of the
Limitation Act will apply to the appeals
filed under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 and
4 All. Vijay Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
33
in holding the said applicability, the Apex
Court noted with affirmative that Section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act does
not contain any provision akin tosection
34(3)of the Arbitration Act, 1996 and
merely provides for a limitation period of
60 days from the date of the judgment or
order appealed against, without going into
whether delay beyond this period can or
cannot be condoned.

(46)
Further,
the
expression
'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is not elastic enough to
cover long delays and merely because
sufficient cause has been made out, there is
no right to have such delay condoned. The
Apex Court further held that only short
delays, can be condoned only by way of an
exception and not by the way of rule, and
that too only when the party acted in a
bona fide manner and not negligently.

(47) Since, in the present bunch
of appeals, the impugned order passed by
the Additional District Judge, Barabanki
under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 has been
sought to be challenged by NHAI by filing
a belated appeal under Section 37 of the
Act, 1996 beyond the permissible 60 days
without any "sufficient cause", the abovecaptioned appeals are held to be time
barred."

6. Upon a perusal of the above
judgement, it is clear that the Arbitration
Act being a legislation for speedy redressal,
the delay in filing the appeal can only be
allowed if the appellant makes out a very
strong case and explains the reasons for
delay. In the present case, one does not find
any such reason provided which would
enable this Court to condone the delay.

7. In light of the same, the appeal is
dismissed as barred by limitation.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 33
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s
438 CR.P.C No. 807 of 2024

Vijay Pal Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pawan Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

आपराधिक विधि - भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 -
िारा 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - दंड प्रहिया
संहिता, 1973 - िारा 82 - अधिम जमानत -
हदनांक 15.06.2022 को प्रार्थी सहित पााँच नाधमत
एिं एक अज्ञात व्यवि के विरुद्ध दजज प्रार्थधमकी में
आरोप िै हक हदनांक 13.05.2022 को धिकायतकर्त्री
की भूधम का वििय-पर्त्र सि-अधभयुि घनश्याम धसंि
के पक्ष में फजी तरीके से धनष्पाहदत हकया गया,
जबहक धिकायतकर्त्री को कोई िनराधि प्राप्त निीं िुई
- प्रार्थी प्रर्थम सूचना ररपोर्ज में नाधमत निीं िै हकन्तु
धिकायतकर्त्री ने िारा 161 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगजत हदये
गये अपने बयान में किा हक प्रार्थी भी अन्य
अधभयुिगण के सार्थ इस िोखािडी में सम्ममधित र्था
- उि वििय-पर्त्र के धनष्पादन के संबंि में िेता
घनश्याम धसंि द्वारा भी प्रार्थधमकी दजज कराई गई र्थी,
म्जसमें प्रार्थी को न्यायािय द्वारा अधिम जमानत
प्रदान की जा चुकी िै - प्रार्थजना-पर्त्र का विरोि करते
िुए राज्य सरकार के विद्वान अधिििा ने किा हक
प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध िारा 82 दं०प्र०सं० की कायजिािी
प्रारंभ की जा चुकी िै हकन्तु उनको प्राप्त अनुदेि में
निीं किा गया िै हक िारा 82 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगजत