Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:115471-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 182 of 2025 Appellant :- The Superintending Engineer Gandak Irrigation Work Mandal and another Respondent :- Shri Sohrat Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Singh (S.C.) AND Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 183 of 2025 Appellant :- The Superintending Engineer Gandak Badh Mandal Gorakhpur and another Respondent :- Shri J.B. Singh Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Singh (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. These appeals are directed against orders dated 19.12.2024, passed by Commercial Court, Gorakhpur, whereby the applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act'), filed by the appellant against awards dated 14.07.2017 and 11.07.2017 respectively, have been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. The appeals are barred by 120 days. 3. Applications seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been filed with the usual indications made about movement of file from one to another seeking opinions and further opinions and delayed grant of sanction for filing the appeals. 4. Before issuing notice on applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we have examined the merit of the appeals itself. 5. As noticed, the awards were passed on 14.07.2017 and 11.07.2017 respectively. The applications under Section 34 of the Act were filed on 17.11.2017 in both the matters with the plea that the award was received by the appellants on 25.07.2017 and 19.07.2017 respectively, based on which, applications were filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the applications on the ground that there were floods and the officers and employees were busy in relief operations, which resulted in the delay in filing the applications and therefore, the delay may be condoned. 6. The respondent contested the submissions made in this regard and submitted that copy of the award by the Arbitrator was served on the appellants on 15.07.2017 and 12.07.2017 respectively, i.e., on the next day of passing of the award in both the cases and therefore, the applications were barred by limitation. The plea raised, pertaining to the officers and employees being busy with the flood relief, was also denied. 7. As there was a dispute pertaining to the date of receipt of the award by the appellants, the respondent filed applications for summoning the record of the Arbitrator, by which the copy of the award was served on the appellants. The applications were allowed. On 13.07.2022, the Commercial Court, on production of the record, found established that the copy of the awards were received by the appellant on 15.07.2017 and 12.07.2017 respectively, i.e., the next day of passing of the award. On the calculation made by the Commercial Court, it was found that even if, the delay of 30 days is condoned, in terms of proviso to Section 34 of the Act, the applications were barred by 4 days and 7 days respectively, which delay in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in P. Radha Bai and others Vs. P. Ashok Kumar and another : (2019) 13 SCC 445 cannot be condoned and consequentially, dismissed the appeals. 8. Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that as the officers were busy with the flood relief work, the delay ought to have been condoned by the Commercial Court. 9. The plea raised apparently has no substance in view of the statutory provision contained in proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, which, inter alia, reads as under: "34(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter." 10. The proviso restricts the power of the Court to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days beyond the limitation of three months for filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, which provisions have been considered and law has been laid down in the case of P. Radha Bai (supra). 11. In that view of the matter, the judgments passed by the Commercial Court, even on merits, cannot be faulted. 12. The manner of conducting the litigation on behalf of the State as would be noticed, leaves much to be desired. The awards pertain to huge sums running into Rs. 94 Lakh and Rs. 37 Lakh respectively and first the applications under Section 34 of the Act have been filed with delay taking an incorrect plea regarding date of receipt of award and even when the applications under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed as barred by limitation, even the present appeals under Section 37 of the Act have been filed with the delay of 120 days, for which, as noticed hereinbefore, apparently, there is no explanation. It is for the State-Authorities to ensure that the litigations, involving huge sums of the State, are diligently prosecuted. 13. In view of above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgments impugned. The appeals have no substance, the same are, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad