1 2025:HHC:39024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 453 of 2025 & Arb. Appeal No. 477 of 2025 Date of decision: 17.11.2025. _______________________________________________________ The Andhra Pradesh Medical Services & Infrastructure Development Corporation …..Appellant Versus M/s Radico Remedies & others ...Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _______________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed in Arbitration Case No. 97 of 2018, titled as Andhra Pradesh Medical Services & Infrastructure Development 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Corporation Vs. Radico Remedies & others, filed by the present appellant, which was dismissed on 29.03.2022, on account of non-deposit of 75% of the award amount keeping in view of provisions of Section 19 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, (for short “the Act”). 2. Before proceeding with the merits of the case, it is to be noticed that the present appeal is hopelessly time barred by 3 years and 231 days. 3. A perusal of the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in one set of paper book, would go on to show that the copy was initially applied on 30.03.2022, which was made available on 26.04.2022, however on the another set of paper book, it was recorded that the copy was applied on 12.11.2025, which was made available on the same day. 4. The sufficient cause as such which is sought to be made out to condone the delay in filing the present appeal is that the appellant took steps to obtain comprehensive legal opinion and approval from 3 the competent authorities as the appellant, being a Government instrumentality constituted under the A.P. Public Societies Act, 1930, was required to obtain multiple sanctions at various administrative levels. The compilation of records and processing through the Health, Finance and Law Departments consumed time and that during the period, the continuing impact of COVID-19 pandemic, including the Omicron wave through early, 2023, caused substantial disruption in official functioning. Following the subsistence of the pandemic, the Corporation witnessed major administrative turnover. Between 2022 to 2024, as many as six Executive Directors and Managing Directors were posted and transferred, besides several other senior officials, as per Annexure A-1 and this frequent change of key personnel resulted in reconstruction of files and repeated re-verification of opinions. It is averred that in October, 2023, the State of Andhra Pradesh suffered severe flooding in Krishna and Godavari basins, disrupting roads, supply lines and public officers, and, therefore, the appellant’s logistics 4 divisions were diverted to emergency medical relief work. Thereafter, the delay was sought to be justified on the ground of notification issued on 18.04.2024 for simultaneous Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, for which polling was held on 13.05.2024 and counting was done on 04.06.2024. During the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, departmental decisions involving financial sanctions or legal filings were frozen and several officers of the appellant-Unit were deputed on election duty, causing further unavoidable delay. 5. It is further averred that in November 2024, there was another phase of intense rainfall and flooding in the State of Andhra Pradesh and therefore, the appellants were fully engaged in relief and restoration of health infrastructure. It was only on 03.07.2024 after 2 years 3 months that the communication was addressed to the learned Advocate General of the State of Andhra Pradesh, seeking advice regarding the feasibility of further challenge to the award. Subsequently, further reference was made to the learned Advocate General 5 on 20.01.2025 and again on 07.03.2025, requesting specific opinion and clearance for appropriate proceedings. 6. Thereafter, the appellant wrote to the Special Chief Secretary (Health) on 30.06.2025 and to the Advocate on Record on 30.07.2025 regarding filing a Special Leave Petition. The necessary correspondence regarding this aspect is Annexure A-2. Perusal of the same would go on to show that an amount of Rs.2,46,33,470/-, was held eligible to be released to the petitioner. 7. Similarly, from the perusal of the communication dated 30.07.2025 addressed by Sh. G. Veerapandian, Commissioner of the appellant-Unit to the Advocate on Record, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, would go on to show that it was admitted that the said amount as such was payable and even the respondents were eligible for payment of the aforesaid amount and the other amounts including the interest were not payable. 6 8. Reference was also made to Execution Petition No. 05 of 2019, arising out of the same arbitral award which was pending before the Executing Court and now stated to be listed for hearing on 18.11.2025. In such circumstances, the delay is sought to be condoned. 9. During the course of the arguments, it transpired that one of accounts of the appellant-Unit was frozen due to the filing of the execution proceedings. 10. Perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the follow-up of the case had been conducted in a casual manner. It is to be noticed that when the matter was pending before the Arbitrator, Shri S. Ranga Rao, Advocate from Hyderabad had appeared for the respondents way back on 02.07.2018. However on 03.08.2018, when the matter was fixed for filing reply, neither the respondents nor their Counsel appeared and consequently, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte. 7 11. In such circumstances, the award dated 28.04.2018 of Rs.3,56,84,913/- came to be passed as interest element and principle amount was Rs.6,67,82,933/- taking the total awarded amount to Rs. 10,24,67,846/-. 12. Before the learned Single Judge also, an attempt was made to delay the proceedings by saying that the there was possibility of conciliation of the matter between the parties and without depositing the necessary 75% of the award amount in view of the statutory provisions, which would be clear from the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 18.06.2019 and 22.07.2019. 13. Even today, the admitted amount, which was liable to be paid was over 2.4 crores, has not been paid by way of demand draft to show bona fides apart from 75% of the amount, which was required to be deposited as per the statutory provisions of Section 19 of the Act. 14. In such circumstances, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in 8 Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & others Vs. Union of India & another, (2023) 10 SCC 531, in which it was held that merits of the case have also to be looked into. 15. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant has also failed the said test. It is to be noticed that the sufficient cause, which is sought to be made out, has also not been justified and explained. The Corporation has tried to put forward various causes with which we are not convinced. The issue of COVID was never in vogue after the year 2022 and the order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.03.2022. It is to be noticed that from 26.07.2021 to 20.06.2024, Shri D. Murlidhar Reddy, IAS was holing the charge of Managing Director, as would be clear from Annexure A-1 and, therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel is without any basis that there were many officers holding the charge of Managing Director for a short period of time. No action has apparently been taken during the said period by the said Officer. 9 16. Similarly, Reference as such to flooding of the State on two occasions and holding of Assembly and Lok Sabha elections, is also without any basis, as it occurred much later in point of time. 17. The order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 29.03.2022, whereas the action was taken by the appellants for the first time in the year 2024, when communication dated 03.07.2024 was made to the learned Advocate General of the Andhra Pradesh seeking advice regarding the feasibility of further challenge to the award, as has been mentioned in paragraph of 8 of the application. 18. Apparently, as noticed above, the Execution Petition No. 05 of 2019 was filed way back in the year 2019, which is now pending and an interim order was also passed, but in spite of that, no effective steps were taken to file the present appeal within a reasonable period of time. 19. The life span of each legal remedy to be respected has been expounded in B. Madhuri Goud versus B. Damodar Reddy, (2012) 12 SCC 693. 10 20. In Maniben Devraj Shah versus Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai (2012) 5 SCC 157, it has been held that certain vested rights of litigant are to be kept in mind before condoning the delay. 21. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, can be culled out to the extent that totally unfettered free play cannot be allowed and the conduct, behaviour and attitude should be the relevant factors to be taken into consideration, though, the State may be given some acceptable latitude. 22. In Chief Postmaster General and others versus Living Media India Limited and another (2012) 3 SCC 563, a similar view was taken. 23. In Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025, titled as H. Guruswamy & Ors. Versus A. Krishnaiah (since deceased by LRs), decided on 08.01.2025, it was held that once a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own 11 inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non- deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:- “16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the 12 litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the 'Sword of Damocles' hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.” 24. The Apex Court in a large number of cases, has held that the Government Departments are now used to getting certification from Courts to ensure that responsibility is not fixed on the Heads of the delinquent officer(s)/officials to cause delay. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654, wherein the fact that the action were never taken against the officer responsible, was noticed by the Court and cost of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed for the delay of 663 days in filing the appeal. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:- 13 “6.We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorized earlier as “certificate cases”. The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the concerned officer responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straight away counsels appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.” 25. Apparently, the present appeal has only been filed without any justification or details. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to issue notice to the respondents, who admittedly as such was covered under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, and, therefore, they are facing severe financial crunch on account of the present 14 appellant, who has not disbursed even a single penny to the respondents, in spite of the Award having been passed in the year 2018. 26. Resultantly, the application for condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also meets with the same fate. 27. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. November 17, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.