The Superintending Engineer and Another Vs Proprietor Smt. Aneeta Devi

This appeal is directed against order dated 30.06.2025 passed by Commercial Court, Gorakhpur whereby the application filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶10

The award against which application under Section 34 of the Act was filed was passed by the Arbitrator on 14.07.2017. Claiming that the award was received by the appellants on 25.07.20217, application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act.

¶11

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 i.e. on the next day of passing of the award and therefore, the application was barred by limitation.

¶12

As there was a dispute pertaining to the date of receipt of the award by the appellants as it was claimed that the award was received on 25.07.2017 and the respondent claimed that the same was received on 15.07.2017, the respondent filed application for summoning the record of the Arbitrator, by which the copy of the award was served on the appellants.

¶13

The application was allowed, the Commercial Court on production of the record found established that copy of the award was received by the

¶14

ARPL No. 254 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

appellants on 15.07.2017 i.e. the next day of passing of the award and on the calculation made by the Commercial Court, it was found that if delay of 30 days is condoned in terms of proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, the application was barred by 4 days 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 consequently, dismissed the application.

¶17

Counsel for the appellants attempted to make submissions that application was barred by few days only and therefore, the Commercial Court should have condoned the delay.

¶18

The plea raised apparently has no substance in view of statutory provisions contained in proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act which inter alia reads as under:

¶19

"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:

¶20

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."

¶21

The proviso restricts the power of the Court to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days after expiry of three months' limitation for filing the application under Section 34 of the Act. This provision has been considered and law has been laid down in the case of P. Radha Bai and others (supra) .

¶22

The manner of conducting litigation on behalf of the State leaves much to be desired. The award pertains to a huge sum of Rs. 94 lakh and for the carelessness and negligence of officers, the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed beyond the condonable period of limitation.

¶23

The appeal has no substance, the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶24

Qua the same Department, we have dismissed two appeals being Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996

¶25

ARPL No. 254 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

Defective Nos. 182 of 2025 and 183 of 2025 on 17.07.2025 wherein also the applications under Section 34 of the Act were barred by 4 and 7 days and even the said appeals were also barred by 120 days. Amount involved in those cases was Rs. 94 lacs and 37 lacs respectively.

¶28

The conduct of the officers involved, needs to be investigated by the respondents in case they care for the finances of the State.

¶29

A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh by the Registrar (Compliance).

¶30

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶31

August 28, 2025 AHA

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The Superintending Engineer and Another v. Proprietor Smt. Aneeta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Superintending Engineer and Another v. Proprietor Smt. Aneeta Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases