Dismissed

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative v. Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and Anr.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2025ARPL/17/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held that the appeal was barred by limitation and not maintainable, as no appeals lie against orders under Section 14 regarding termination of an arbitrator's mandate.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.10.2018 dismissing the Section 14 application was affirmed.

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Vs… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42683-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 17 of 2020

¶4

Appellant :- M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Respondent :- Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and another

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Amitav Singh, Abhishek Dwivedi, Divyanshu Bhatt

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Yashovardhan Swarup,Avanish Kumar Singh,Bhavya Upadhyay, Radha Gautam

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

This appeal under Section 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') has been filed against order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Commercial Court, Lucknow whereby an application filed by the appellant under Section 14(2) of the Act of 1996 has been dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶9

The appeal is barred by 690 days.

¶10

Though, an application had been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and an affidavit has been filed in support thereof, in the application, it has been indicated that the circumstances for seeking condonation of delay have been disclosed in the accompanying appeal.

¶11

In the appeal, indications have been made that before passing of the order dated 23.10.2018, the writ petition was preferred before this Court on 10.05.2018 seeking direction to the Arbitrator for termination of his mandate and as despite the fact that the petition remained pending for two years, and was not even listed, the petitioner re-considered the legal recourse and has filed the present appeal.

¶12

The plea sought to be raised in the appeal regarding the

¶13

pendency of the writ petition before this Court for the purpose of questioning the validity of the order dated 23.10.2018 with a delay, cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the appellant was required to explain the delay post 23.10.2018 after the order was passed by the Commercial Court, Lucknow, which the appellant has miserably failed to even disclose the justification.

¶14

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Maharashtra Vs. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 460 , on the aspect of delay in filing the appeals under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 has inter alia laid down as under:-

¶15

"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(1A) 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."

¶16

In terms of the parameters laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, no case is made out for condoning the delay in fling the appeal. The application therefore stands dismissed.

¶17

Besides the above, the appeal purportedly has been filed under Section 37 of the Act of 1996, however, qua an order passed under Section 14 of the Act of 1996, which pertains to the prayer for Court to decide the termination of mandate of the Arbitrator, no appeal is provided under Section 37 of the Act of 1996. Though, in filing the application before the Commercial Court, a reference to Section 9 of the Act of 1996 has been made, however, the relief claimed was qua termination of mandate of the Arbitrator and Section 9 of the Act of 1996 was sought to be moved seeking a direction against him not to

¶18

proceed further with the arbitration proceedings.

¶19

In view of above fact situation wherein besides the fact that the appeal is grossly barred by limitation, the appeal itself is not maintainable. No case is made out.

¶20

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Asheesh/RK/-

¶22

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative v. Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative v. Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Ashre vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Forests U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Km. Gulabsa Bano (Cwsn) Thru. Her Natural Guardian Father Sri Sahabuddin and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 6 Others

Vishnu Pratap Chauhan Alias Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Archana Vs Sri Mayuresh Srivastava Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Sultanpur

Deenbandhu Samgra Swasthya Avam Siksha Shodh Sansthan Thru. Its Chairman,Shafiullah Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education Central New Delhi and 3 Others

M/S Taurant Projects Ltd. Thru. Authorised Representative Vs Green Gas Ltd. Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and Anr.