982, 983, 984.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 982 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13685 OF 2021 IN ARBAST/26537/2021 National Highways Authority Of India Represented By Its Project Director Arvind R. Kale VERSUS Chandrakant Batesingh Raghuwanshi And Another … 983 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13688 OF 2021 IN ARBAST/26534/2021 National Highways Authority Of India Represented By Its Project Director Arvind Kale VERSUS Rohidas Chudaman Patil And Another 984 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13689 OF 2021 IN ARBAST/15885/2021 National Highways Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit Dhule Thr Project Director VERSUS Raghunath Bhagwan Chaudhary And Another ... Mr. D. S. Manorkar, Advocate for Applicant *** CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J DATE : MARCH 24, 2026 PC : 1. There is delay of 630 days in filing these Appeals. The reasons mentioned for delay are noted in paragraphs 8 to 11, as under: “8. That after receipt of the above impugned order under challenge was then discussed, scrutinized and examined by the office of applicant with the legal PAGE 1 OF 3 2026:BHC-AUG:12544 982, 983, 984.odt consultant. That after being satisfied that the above impugned order requires to be challenged before Hon'ble High Court it was decided to send the proposal for approval from the competent authority of NHAI. 9. That the office of applicant requires administrative approval, for every important decision to be taken, thus in pursuance to obtain approval for challenging the above impugned order before appellate forum the communication was sent to the Regional Office of NHAI at Nagpur. 4 10. That above proposal and the impugned order was then further scrutinized and discussed at the R.O. office of NHAI at Nagpur and then administrative approval for challenging the above impugned order was communicated to the office of applicant. Thereafter the office of applicant issued further necessary instructions to its legal counsel about the same. 11. That thereafter the draft of appeal was submitted by the legal counsel was studied, discussed and finalized and after arrangement for financial approvals for the payment of court fees some additional time had gone.” 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 (3) SCR 193 has held that 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 PAGE 2 OF 3 982, 983, 984.odt 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. 3. Considering the above judgment, delay of 630 days and reasons mentioned in the application cannot be accepted as a good ground for condoning delay in filing Applications under Section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, Applications so also Appeals are dismissed. (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.) usm PAGE 3 OF 3