State of H.P. & Anr. v. Jai Singh Kashyap CARAP(M) No.17 of 2025 30.06.2026 Present: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for the applicants. Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, for the respondent. CARAP(M) No.17 of 2025 By way of this application filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the objections. Learned Additional Advocate General has taken the Court through the application and has submitted that after the award was passed by the learned Arbitrator, which is dated 20.12.2024, the signed copy of the award was received on 21.12.2024. He submitted that thereafter, the case was submitted to the office of Superintendent Engineer HPPWD (SZ) on 26.12.2024 for referring the same to the Government so that the opinion of the Government could be obtained in the matter. The Superintendent Engineer forwarded the case to the office of the Chief Engineer concerned on 07.01.2025, which was received in the said office on 10.01.2025. Thereafter, the matter was examined in the legal cell of the concerned office and on 23.01.2025 the matter was submitted to the Law Department. The Law Department on 25.03.2025 conveyed its opinion to the office of Engineer-in-Chief and the same was thereafter conveyed by the office of the Engineer-in-Chief to Executive Engineer Kasauli Division i.e., applicant No.2 on 27.03.2025. He further submitted that thereafter immediate steps were taken for preparing the draft objections, which was submitted to the legal cell of the office of Engineer-in-Chief on 02.04.2025 which was vetted on 05.04.2025. The same were thereafter submitted to the office of learned Advocate General on 05.04.2025 and all this has resulted in the delay beyond 90 days and it is in these circumstances that the application has been filed. The application is resisted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-applicant/respondent. He argued that the averments made in the application are self speaking that after the signed copy of the award was received by the office of the Executive Engineer concerned, there was no due diligence exercised, because, it is not the case of the applicants that they were not aware of the limitation within which the objections have filed. He further submitted that with the efflux of time a right stands accrued upon the non-applicants which cannot be taken away by condoning the delay. He submitted that the delay that has occurred in the filing of the objections is on account of omissions and commissions of the Department for which the non-applicant is not responsible. In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General referred to the rejoinder filed to the reply and submitted that reasonable explanation stands given therein as to why the objections could not be filed within 90 days and he thus submitted that it would be in the interest of justice in case the application is allowed as prayed for so that the applicants get an opportunity to agitate the award passed by the learned Arbitrator on merit. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as also learned Senior Counsel for the non- applicant/respondent. I have also carefully perused the averments made in the application as also the reply and rejoinder. It is a matter of record that the objections have not filed within three months as from the date of the receipt of the signed copy of the award by the applicants from the Arbitrator, but, it is also a matter of record that the objections have been filed alongwith the present application though beyond three months, but, within a further period of 30 days as from the date of expiry of three months. The reasons, which have been given in the application as to why the objections could not be filed within three months, though, again portray the system in vogue in the Government Departments, which defeats the mechanism of the limitation provided in various statutes in variably, yet, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, it would be in the interest of justice, if the present application is allowed and the objections are permitted to be taken on record by condoning the delay. The indulgence is necessary for the reason that the hierarchy which exists in the Government Department unfortunately does not enable the Officer concerned who actually has to file the petition etc., to do so until and unless he or she gets approval and sanctions from the higher authority. In such a situation, what the Court has to consider is as to whether it would be in the interest of justice to not allow condonation of delay in filing the objections which otherwise admittedly stand filed though beyond three months, but, within 30 days thereafter or would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay. This Court is of the considered view that in the interest of justice, in such a situation discretion should be exercised in favour of the party which is seeking condonation of delay so that it at least gets an opportunity to assail the award before the fora provided under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act under Section 34 thereof. The scope of Section 34 otherwise is limited in terms of the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on the issue and if this limited opportunity is also not provided to the applicants despite statute providing for acceptance of objections after three months provided they are filed within 30 days beyond the period of three months, the same shall not serve the interest of justice. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this application is allowed. The delay in filing the objections beyond three months is condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the applicants to the non- applicant/respondent within three weeks from today. CARBC No.______ of 2026 Be registered. Issue notice. Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and on his instructions Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Senior Counsel has also appeared on behalf of the respondent. Response to the objections within four weeks. List thereafter. OMPST No.28498 of 2025 This application is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the deposition of the award amount with upto date interest with the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, the operation of the award shall remain stayed. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 30, 2026 (Vinod)