HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 80 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') is directed against the orders passed by the Commercial Court, Kanpur Nagar, which by order dated 22.10.2021 dismissed the Application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 filed by the appellant for non compliance of pre deposit under Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act of 2006), order dated 30.01.2023 whereby Application filed for setting aside order dated 22.10.2021 was dismissed and order dated 03.05.2024 whereby another Application filed seeking setting aside of orders dated 22.10.2021 and 30.01.2023, was dismissed. 2. The office has reported the appeal as barred by 1147 days. 3. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, supported by an affidavit. 4. It is inter alia indicated in the affidavit that appellant was under bona fide belief that the limitation to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 is 90 days, the recall application was filed by the appellant was rejected by the Commercial Court on 03.05.2024, after following all the due departmental procedure, the appellant challenged the order dated 03.05.2024 by filing writ petition under Section 227 of the Constitution of India on 30.07.2024. It is thereafter claimed that during course of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Vivek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Utkarsh Singh Union of India .....Appellant(s) Tirupati Texco Products Pvt. Ltd. 132-D .....Respondent(s) arguments in the above writ petition, the appellant was instructed to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. Whereafter the record of the case was placed before the A.S.G.I., who nominated counsel and without any delay, the draft was sent in the month of November, 2024 to the appellant for vetting which was forwarded to the counsel in the month of January, 2025. Whereafter the appeal has been filed on 31.01.2025. 5. A prayer has been made that this Court may graciously be pleased to condone the delay. 6. Counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions seeking condonation of delay by claiming that the amount as required under Section 19 of the Act of 2006 could not be deposited which led to dismissal of the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and thereafter two applications filed for recalling of the orders came to be rejected. Whereafter under wrong legal advice, writ petition was filed and during pendency of the writ petition, the present appeal has been preferred and therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. 7. Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that in the first instance, the amount as required by the statute was not deposited and after several adjournments granted by the Commercial Court when amount was not deposited, the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was dismissed on 22.10.2021. Wherafter an application was moved again insisting for restoration without making the statutory pre deposit, which application was rejected on 30.01.2023. 8. The said application was thereafter followed by a recall application proposing to deposit the amount which application also was rejected on 03.05.2024, whereafter also, on the purported wrong advice, writ petition was filed before this Court wherein objection was raised regarding maintainability, however instead of taking action, same was resisted and even during pendency of the said writ petition, the present appeal was filed which writ petition came to be withdrawn even without seeking any liberty on 05.03.2025. The indications made regarding seeking of permission etc. also clearly reflect a callous, lax and negligent attitude of the appellant and therefore, the application seeking condonation of huge delay deserves to be dismissed. ARPLD No. 80 of 2025 2 9. Reliance was placed on Government of Maharashtra vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. : (2021) 6 SCC 460 and Tirupati Steels vs. Shubh Industrial Component and Another : (2022) 7 SCC 429. 10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 11. The facts of the present case is glaring example of the attitude of the officers in taking the provisions of law in their stride under the impression that being the government/government organization, the non compliance of the provisions would be continued to be condoned. Despite the fact that law pertaining to pre deposit under Section 19 of the Act of 2006 is well settled, appellants chose not to deposit the said amount rather insisted on not depositing the said amount. When twice rejection orders were passed, another application was moved inter alia seeking to comply with the provisions which application was rejected by the Commercial Court. Subsequent thereto, again against settled legal position regarding challenge of order, writ petition was filed and even when during its pendency, apparently based on objection, procedure was initiated for filing the appeal, same has taken several months in filing the present appeal. 12. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with the affidavit is further an example of the attitude as noticed herinbefore wherein even basic requirement of making out sufficient cause, has not been attempted and only few dates have been indicated and the High Court has been required to graciously condone the delay. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tirupati Steels (supra), has held that compliance of provisions of Section 19 of the Act of 2006 is mandatory and in the case of Borse Brothers (supra), while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay in appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has observed as under: "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(1A) of the ARPLD No. 80 of 2025 3 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." 14. In view of the above categorical dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case is made out seeking condonation of delay of 1147 days in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. 15. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. March 26, 2026 RK ARPLD No. 80 of 2025 4 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad