Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040004532025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/82/2025 The Union of India and Anr represented by the Secretary, Govt of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi 784001 2: Military Engineering Services Age: Occupation : represented by its Chief Engineer HQ Chief Engineer Siliguri zone MES Sevoke Road PO Salugra Siliguri West Bengal 73400 VERSUS M/s Phurpa Tsering and Anr represented by its proprietor Shri Phurpa Tsering, its office at Village Rungkhung, Po and PS Dirang, West Kameng District, Arunachal Pradesh 790101 2:Phurpa Tsering Age: 0 Occupation : resident of Village Rungkhung Po and PS Dirang West Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh 79010 Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, DSGI Advocate for the Respondent : A Dhar, Eddie Payeng,H K Jamoh BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Page No.# 2/6 Date : 27-06-2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the applicant/Union of India. Also heard Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the opposite party/respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation delay of 39 days in filing the connected Arbitration Appeal No.01(AP)/2025 assailing the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the District Judge, West Kameng District, Bomdila in Misc. Arbitration Case No.01/2022. 3. The respondents filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 assailing the arbitral award dated 23.04.2023, passed by the sole arbitrator Justice B.K. Sharma, (Retired), in Arbitration proceeding No.16/PS-NES/2021, which was registered as Misc. Arbitration Case No.01/2022, before the learned District Judge, Bomdila. The learned District Judge, Bomdila, has disposed of the Misc. Arbitration Case vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2024. The applicant seeks to file the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for which, there is delay of 39 days in filing the connected appeal. 4. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the applicant while explaining the delay has submitted that in fact the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 was not pronounced by the learned District Judge, Bomdila as the representative of applicant had appeared on 22.07.2024. Since, no Page No.# 3/6 judgment was pronounced till 22.07.2024, correspondences were made between the authorities and its counsel. The correspondences clearly indicates that till the month of October, 2024, the website of the district court showed the status of case to be “pending judgment”. He submits that it is only on 11.11.2024, the applicant came to know that the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 has been delivered. He submits that on 11.11.2024, the applicant had applied for a certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024. Pursuant to which a copy of the said judgment and order was issued, however, the same was not a certified copy therefore, it was recalled and finally on 14.11.2024, certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 was issued. 5. Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI for the applicant submits that on receipt of the certified copy, the authorities made correspondence for advise and suggestion with regard to the judgement which has taken considerable period of time. Finally, after preparation of the appeal, the Arbitration appeal under Section 39 could be filed on 23.03.2024, for which, there is a delay of 39 days for filing the connected appeal if the grace period of 90 days as per the Limitation period is taken off. Therefore, he submits that delay of 39 days is not deliberate and as such same may be condoned. 6. On the other hand, Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents submits that the applicant has failed to show when he had applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024, as it is not annexed to the present application and the copy annexed to the appeal does not indicate the date of application for the certified copy. He submits that there is no mention or much less Page No.# 4/6 explanation from 22.07.2024 till 11.11.2024 i.e. 112 days, to justify that there was no negligence or deliberate inaction on the part of the applicant. That apart, even 39 days projected by the applicant has not been explained at all as to whether there was sufficient ground to condone the delay. Therefore, he submits that appeal being under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the objective of arbitration proceedings being of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes, the delay in filing the connected appeal cannot be condoned. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dhar, learned counsel, has placed reliance upon the decisions order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of N.V. International Vs. State of Assam, reported in (2020) 2 SSC 109 and of Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors, reported in (2021) 6 SSC 460. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the reasons put forth in the application in not filing the connected appeal within limitation period. 9. The learned District Judge, West Kameng Bomdila, has disposed of the Misc. Arbitration Case No.01/2023 which was instituted by the opposite party/respondents against the arbitration award dated 24.02.2023 in the Arbitral proceeding No.16/PS-NES/2021. 10. The record reveals that the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 was not pronounced on the same day as the representative of the applicants appeared on 22.07.2024. Various correspondences amongst the Page No.# 5/6 authorities including the learned DSGI indicates that till 03.10.2024, the status of the case Misc. Arbitration Case No.01/2023 was shown to be “pending judgment” in the website of the District court. Although the applicant would have been explained the 112 days, from 22.07.2024 to 11.11.2024, considering that the applicants came to know the judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 only 11.11.2024, which is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the explanation would not be relevant as the judgement and order appears have been not pronounced during those period. 11. This court finds that the applicant has applied for the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.04.2024 on 11.11.2024 and the certified copy was issued on the 14.11.2024 and thus, the reasons of delay in filing the connected appeal appears to be reasonable inasmuch as it involves a different authorities and not only a single authority to take a decision on the issue. Therefore, I am satisfied that a sufficient cause is shown which prevented the applicant to file the connected appeal within a period of limitation. 12. I have perused the judgment and orders relied on by the learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents and on perusal, I find that the facts of those cases are distinct and different and thus, same would not come to the aid of the opposite party as in those cases there were clearly long delays which are different from the present case. 13. It is the settled proposition of law that when the substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of Page No.# 6/6 substantial justice deserves to be preferred and the sufficient cause should be interpreted to advance the substantial justice. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the delay of 39 days in filing the connected appeal is condoned. Interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of, accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant