# D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2007] 1 S.C.R. 904
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-01-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 220 of2007
- **Bench:** Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, Altamas Kabir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-gopinathan-pillai-v-state-of-kerala-and-anr-22916
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Arbitration Act, 1940:
Application for setting aside award-3320 days delay in filingCondoned by civil court-High Court declining to interfere-Held, delay
cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory,
sufficient and proper reason-Orders of Civil Court and High Court set
aside-Delay/Laches-Delay in filing application for setting aside award
Respondent-State Government filed an application for condoning 3320
days delay in filing the application for setting aside the award. The civil
court allowed the said application observing that officers of the State
Government committed gross negligence in not filing the objection for
such a long time but the Government should not be penalized for their fault
The High Court dismissed appellant's revision petition.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD:
There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the
petition for setting aside the award. When a '!landatory provision is not
complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and
convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the
sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the Sub-Judge and also by the
High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given
to condone the inordinate delay of3320 days. It is well considered principle
G
of law that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable,
satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the courts have miserably
failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena
of cases. [Para 5] (906-B-CI

## Text

A
B
c
D
D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI
v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
JANUARY 15, 2007
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
Arbitration Act, 1940:
Application for setting aside award-3320 days delay in filingCondoned by civil court-High Court declining to interfere-Held, delay
cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory,
sufficient and proper reason-Orders of Civil Court and High Court set
aside-Delay/Laches-Delay in filing application for setting aside award
Respondent-State Government filed an application for condoning 3320
days delay in filing the application for setting aside the award. The civil
court allowed the said application observing that officers of the State
Government committed gross negligence in not filing the objection for
such a long time but the Government should not be penalized for their fault
The High Court dismissed appellant's revision petition.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
F
HELD:
There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the
petition for setting aside the award. When a '!landatory provision is not
complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and
convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the
sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the Sub-Judge and also by the
High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given
to condone the inordinate delay of3320 days. It is well considered principle
G
of law that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable,
satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the courts have miserably
failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena
of cases. [Para 5] (906-B-CI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 220 of2007.
H
904
\-
...
D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 905
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High Court
A
ofKerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1177/2005.
T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, T.G. Narayanan Nair, for the Appellant.
R. Sathish, for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J. : l. Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and
Mr.R.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned
Single Judge of the High Court dt.13.12.2005 in C.R.P.No.1177 of2005.
Before the High Court, it was submitted by the appellant herein (D.Gopinathan
Pillai) that the delay in filing an application for setting aside the award was
only 30 days and there was absolutely no explanation for the inordinate
delay of 3320 days in filing the appeal. The High Court without going into
the merits of the delay petition has, however, observed that the application
to set aside the award is ultimately dismissed then the appellant cannot be
said to be aggrieved and that if the said petition is ultimately allowed and
the arbitral award passed in favour of the appellant is set aside then his
remedy is to file an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and
that the appellant can challenge the impugned order in that appeal, in case,
the petition to set aside the award happened to be decided against the
appellant.
Reserving the said right to the appellant, the Civil Revision
Petition was dismissed by the High Court.
4. Our attention was also drawn to the order passed by the Principal
Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dt.30.09.2005 in I.A.No.1309/2005 in
O.P.(Arb.) 78/1995 which was filed by the State of Kerala against the
appellant herein. The court has considered whether the delay of 3320 days
B
c
D
E
F
in filing the petition to set aside the award can be condoned. We have
G
perused the entire order.
However, without assigning any acceptable
reason, Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has condoned the inordinate
delay of 3320 days and allowed the I.A. filed by the State of Kerala. While
condoning the delay, the learned Sub Judge has also observed that the
officers of the State of Kerala has committed gross negligence in not filing
H
A
B
c
D
906
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] I S.C.R.
the objection for a long period of 3320 days and, therefore, for the fault of
the officers, the State should not be penalised.
5. We are unable to countenance the finding rendered by the Sub
Judge and aTso the view taken by the High Court. There is no dispute in
regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the petition for setting aside the
award. When a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the
delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court
cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The orders
passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by the High Court are far from
satisfactory.
No reason whatsoever has been given to condone the
inordinate delay of 3320 days. It is well"considered principle of law that the
delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory,
sufficient and proper reason.
Both the courts have miserably failed to
comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena of cases.
We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by
the Sub-Judge and as affirmed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside
both the orders and allow this appeal.
No costs.
RP.
Appeal allowed.
';