(1) 45.CAM73.25+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.83/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.2659/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.85/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.2662/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.81/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.25451/2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.78/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.2640/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.75/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.2645/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.87/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.2655/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.91/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.4326/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.93/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.25438/2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.77/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.2664/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO.89/2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL ST. NO.4333/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (CAM) NO. 73 OF 2025 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL (ST.) NO. 2656 OF 2025 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Thr Member Secretary And Another VERSUS M/s Network Associates Of Counsulting Engineer Thr Partner, Suyash Shaligram Nyati And Another --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shubham (2) 45.CAM73.25+ Mr. Vandan Gadkari, Advocate for the Applicant (s). Mr. P. Chauhan, Advocate for the Non-applicant(s). CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2026. 1. These 11 applications are seeking condonation of delay in filing the respective arbitration appeals. Since the applicant/appellant is the same and the same reasons are mentioned for seeking condonation of delay, the said applications are being decided by a common order. For the sake of brevity, a tabular form is given. Sr. No. Civil Application No. Challengin g MCA No. Judgment / Order Date Delay Sought to be Condoned Arbitration Appeal (St.) no. 1 CAM No. 73/2025 MCA No. 71/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2625/2025 2 CAM No. 75/2025 MCA No. 72/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2645/2025 3 CAM No. 77/2025 MCA No. 73/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2664/2025 4 CAM No. 78/2025 MCA No. 65/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2640/2025 5 CAM No. 81/2025 MCA No. 69/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 25451/2025 6 CAM No. 83/2025 MCA No. 74/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2659/2025 7 CAM No. 85/2025 MCA No. 67/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2662/2025 8 CAM No. 87/2025 MCA No. 66/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 2655/2025 Shubham (3) 45.CAM73.25+ 9 CAM No. 89/2025 MCA No. 70/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 4333/2025 10 CAM No. 91/2025 MCA No. 68/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 4326/2025 11 CAM No. 93/2025 MCA No. 64/2021 04.05.2024 153 days A.A.St.No. 25438/2025 2. The learned counsel for the applicant(s) submits that the delay of 153 days is not intentional and the applicant, being an authority, could not approach this Court within the prescribed period due to administrative exigencies. By pointing me out paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was some confusion, firstly, regarding the date on which the District Judge decided the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and further regarding the directions in the matter. He, therefore, submits that the delay ought to be condoned. 3. By order dated 04.05.2024, the Miscellaneous Civil Application came to be decided against the appellants. Upon obtaining knowledge of the said order, the counsel appearing for the appellants informed the concerned clerk of the Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran, Chandrapur, on 05.08.2024 to take steps for obtaining the certified copies. Accordingly, the concerned clerk contacted Adv. Shri Gatkine at Chandrapur and, after arranging the requisite amount, an application for certified copies was made on 22.08.2024. The certified copies were received by the counsel on 13.09.2024. Shubham (4) 45.CAM73.25+ 4. It is further submitted that the head office of the appellants is situated at Mumbai and the court cases are dealt with in consultation with the Law and Labour Officer. Permission to file the appeals was granted on 14.11.2024 and the matters were thereafter entrusted to the panel counsel at Nagpur around 20.11.2024. Since there was also a discrepancy regarding the date of the judgment, the panel counsel considered it necessary to verify the roznama. An application for certified copy of the roznama was accordingly made on 25.11.2024 and the same was received on 04.12.2024. Accordingly, the clerk contacted Adv. Shri Gatkine and on 08.08.2024 moved for advance money for obtaining the certified copies. The requisite amount of Rs.4,400/- was provided on 14.08.2024, whereafter Adv. Shri Gatkine applied for the certified copies on 22.08.2024. Thereafter, the connected appeals were prepared. It is submitted that the delay of 153 days was caused on account of the aforesaid circumstances and was beyond the control of the appellants. 5. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellants that immediately after the matter came to the notice of the concerned authorities, the Executive Engineer, MJP, Chandrapur, sought an explanation from the concerned advocate vide communication dated 06.11.2024 and the judgments were brought to the notice of the Law and Labour Officer, MJP, Mumbai on 07.11.2024. Explanations were thereafter called from the concerned advocate and clerk. The panel counsel, vide communication dated 17.11.2024, explained that the certified copies had been handed over to the concerned clerk after obtaining them from the Court. The concerned clerk, in his Shubham (5) 45.CAM73.25+ explanation dated 25.11.2024, stated that he had understood that the matters had been decided in favour of MJP and came to know of the adverse orders subsequently. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non- applicant(s)/respondent(s) herein opposed the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant(s). In his submission, the administrative exigency as has been spelt out in the application cannot be a reason to condone the delay. 7. I have gone through the application for condonation of delay. As can be seen from the said applications, the delay has been caused due to some confusion regarding the date of the order and the date on which the order appears to have been digitally signed. Thereafter, some correspondence ensued between the office of the applicant(s) and the head office at Mumbai, which has caused the delay. It is a settled principle of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal approach is to be adopted and the Court should be liberal in condoning the delay, provided the said delay is explained. The right of the party approaching the Court cannot be defeated only on the ground of delay. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the delay of 153 days caused in filing the appeal is liable to be condoned. However, some costs need to be imposed on the applicant(s). 9. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed. ORDER i) These 11 applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the respective arbitration appeals are allowed subject to Shubham (6) 45.CAM73.25+ payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- by the applicant(s) in each application, to be deposited in the “Public Welfare Account”, Account No. 129712010001014, IFSC Code: UBIN0812978, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. ii) If such amount of costs is paid as aforesaid, the delay caused is condoned. After such exercise is completed, let the appeals be registered and placed before the Court for admission. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham