- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GM, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS CLUB ROAD HUBLI - 580 031. 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER - CONSTRUCTIONS SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY No.18, MILLERS ROAD BANGALORE - 560 046. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY NO. 18, MILLERS ROAD BENGALURU - 560 046. 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY YADAVGIRI MYSURU - 570 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. KONDAIAH C C S/O (LATE) CHENNIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.793, 9TH CROSS 1ST PHASE, VIJAYANAGAR 4TH STAGE, MYSURU - 570 031. 2. ARBITRATAL TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF SOLE ARBITRATOR HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA FORMER JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION CENTER NO.49, EAST WING, 3RD FLOOR KHANIJHA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MAYA HOLLA., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 R/W SEC.37 OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO PASS SUITABLE ORDERS TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.03.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-86) IN COM.A.P.NO.171/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE - "A" & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act] impugning an order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the learned LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Commercial Court, Bengaluru in Comm.AP.No.171/2023. The appellant has filed the said application under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 23.06.2023. The said application to set aside the impugned award was filed on 30.10.2023. The learned Commercial Court found that the said application under was filed beyond the period stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. Further, the delay in filing the application was beyond the period of 30 days that could be condoned in terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. According to the appellant, the Arbitral Award - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 was received by the concerned officials on 28.06.2023 and therefore the period of limitation is required to be computed from that period. Although the said contention was contested by the respondent, it is apparent that even if the same is accepted as correct, the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act was beyond the period of limitation. In terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 may be filed within a period of three months. This period would expire on 27.09.2023, assuming the appellant's contention that the impugned award was received on 28.06.2023. In terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) of A&C Act, the delay of 30 days could be condoned if the applicant had satisfied the court that there were sufficient cause, which prevented the applicant from filing the petition within time. The settled law is that the period of 30 days is the outer limit and the court has no jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond this period. 3. We also note that the learned counsel for the appellant earnestly contended that there is no period of limitation for railway authorities, if there are administrative delays. He very confidently contends that the Supreme Court has authoritatively held the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 same. He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Decortici Engineers and Contractors (Civil Appeal No.1748/2005) in support of the contention. The said contention is insubstantial. We also find that the present appeal is insubstantial. The decision cited by the learned counsel does not support the contention as advanced. 4. We also note that the present appeal is filed after a delay of 288 days. The only explanation provided for the inordinate delay, is encapsulated in a single sentence, which reads as under: 'I state that there was a delay of 288 days in filing this appeal, due to delay in getting approval from the higher officials to file this appeal'. 5. Clearly the said explanation cannot be accepted. In Government of Maharastra V. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors : (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court had held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act could not be condoned beyond the period of 30 days, as stipulated in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. However, the Supreme Court had also clarified that the expression 'sufficient - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32830-DB COMAP No. 86 of 2025 cause' was not elastic enough to accommodate inordinate delays. The relevant extract to the said decision is set out below. "63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches." 6. View of the above, we dismiss the present appeal, both on merits and on delay, at costs quantified at `25,000/- payable to Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 7. Pending application is also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17