Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3349-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 368 of 2024 Appellant :- Executive Engineer, Construction Division-I, Public Works Department Respondent :- M/s Jaihind Enterprises Counsel for Appellant :- Ratan Deep Mishra Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J. 1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') has been filed against judgment and order dated 02.04.2021 passed by Commercial Court, Gorakhpur by which the application filed under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant has been rejected. The appeal is barred by 1271 days. 2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay inter-alia indicating that review petition filed qua order dated 02.04.2021 was dismissed by the Commercial Court on 17.10.2022. The order dated 17.10.2022 was challenged before this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which came to be dismissed on 15.02.2024 as misconceived. It is then indicated that the information with regard to the dismissal of the petition came to the knowledge of the appellant in July 2024 when, on routine course, the status of the pending cases was searched, whereafter it is claimed that the usual procedure seeking opinion and permissions from the competent authority was initiated whereby the permissions were granted by the Law Department and the Government on 04.10.2024 and 08.10.2024, whereafter the appeal has been filed on 21.11.2024. 3. It is indicated that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional but the same is only due to reasons noted herein before. 4. A perusal of the above sequence, as indicated, seeking to justify the delay in filing the appeal, would reveal the casual manner in which, the matters on behalf of the appellant are being handled wherein against order passed under Section 34 of the Act, when the review petition was dismissed on 17.10.2022, instead of filing appeal under Section 37 of the Act, petition under Article 227 was filed, which rightly came to be dismissed as misconceived on 15.02.2024. Surprisingly, despite the fact that the order dated 15.02.2024 was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellant, apparently either the order dated 15.02.2024 was not communicated to the appellant or, if communicated, no care was taken. The affidavit is totally silent on the said aspect and a novel plea has been taken that the fact of dismissal came to the knowledge of the appellant in July 2024 when, on routine course, the status of pending cases was searched. Thereafter also, when on 22.07.2024, the opinion was given by the Chief Standing Counsel for filing of the appeal, it has taken five months to the appellants in a case wherein they had already lost five months from passing of the order dated 15.02.2024 in filing the appeal and a very casual assertion has been made that delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. 5. The above conduct of the appellant/its officers, simply indicates that defending the proceedings/filing of the appeals, review or writs are essentially going through the motions and at no stage there is any application of mind. The officers, despite being aware of the limitation of filing appeal before the Commercial Appellate Division being 60 days and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.: (2021) 6 SCC 460, wherein for filing appeals under Section 37 of the Act, it has been categorically laid down that delay beyond 100 days normally should not be condoned as the same frustrates the very essence of Arbitration Law, the matters are being proceeded in a most casual and lethargic manner. 6. The reason indicated regarding routine checking of status of case after the dismissal of the petition under Article 227 after five months and taking another five months in filing the appeal thereafter, cannot be termed as sufficient cause under any circumstance. 7. Consequently, no case for condonation of delay of 1271 days is made out. The application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Order Date :- 7.1.2025 AHA/Sandeep (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad