Allowed¶28

Municipal Corpotation Gr Mumbai v. R v Anderson Associates Limited

Bombay HC25 Apr 2025IA/1681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 107 days; Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 appeal; Section 34 petition judgment dated 19-20 October 2022; judgment uploaded 18 August 2023; knowledge acquired 27 September 2023; appeal lodged 7 February 2024; Municipal Corporation hierarchical approvals; Sewerage Operation Department; Legal Department office note 3 October 2023; Additional Affidavit 15 May 2025; correction of judgment 18 April 2024; MCGM v. M/s. R.V. Anderson Associates; Bombay High Court OOCJ; sufficient cause; interim application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 107 days in filing Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 4339 of 2024 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 condoned; Interim Application No. 1681 of 2024 allowed and disposed of. ¶28

Municipal Corpotation Gr Mumbai vs R v Anderson Associates Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause exists for condonation of the delay of 107 days in filing the Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the judgment and order dated 19 and 20 October 2022 passed under Section 34 of the Act.

¶14

Court's answer

The impugned order itself was not available for being challenged till its upload on 18 August 2023, as borne out by the endorsement at the foot of each page of the judgment.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Applicant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the Appeal.

¶24

Key takeaways

The correction of the impugned judgment by the learned Single Judge by order dated 18 April 2024 and the subsequent uploading of the modified judgment is an additional reason warranting condonation of delay.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ) condoned a delay of 107 days in the filing by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (MCGM) of Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 4339 of 2024 under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 19 and 20 October 2022 in a Section 34 Petition. Although dictated on 19-20 October 2022, the impugned judgment was uploaded only on 18 August 2023; MCGM acquired knowledge on 27 September 2023 through the Respondent's communication, and the Appeal was lodged on 7 February 2024 after approvals at hierarchical levels of the Municipal Corporation (office note dated 3 October 2023; Executive Engineer's note dated 13 October 2023). The Court (per Sandeep V. Marne, J.; Alok Aradhe, CJ concurring) held sufficient cause was shown, and additionally noted that the impugned judgment had been corrected by order dated 18 April 2024 with the modified judgment thereafter uploaded. Interim Application No. 1681 of 2024 allowed and disposed of. Decision dated 11 June 2025.

¶1

k 1/4 31 ia 1681.24 in arappl db os.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1681 OF 2024 IN ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO.4339 OF 2024 (For Condonation of Delay)

¶4

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (MCGM) ....Applicant In the matter between : Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (MCGM) ....Appellant

¶5

....Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/s. R.V. Anderson Associates

¶8

....Respondent

¶9

Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, Ms. Pooja Yadav and Reshaya Malhotra i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶10

Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tanjul Shama i/b M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶12

DATE : 11 JUNE 2025.

¶13

P.C. (Per : Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

¶14

This is an Application seeking condonation of delay of 107 days in filing Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and k Page No. 1 of 4

¶15

k 2/4 31 ia 1681.24 in arappl db os.doc

¶16

Conciliation Act, 1996 ( the Act ) challenging the judgment and order dated 19 and 20 October 2022 passed in Petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.

¶17

We have heard Mr. Setalwad, the learned senior advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Rustomjee, the learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondent. We have gone through the reasons pleaded for seeking condonation of delay in the Interim Application as well as the Additional Affidavit dated 15 May 2025.

¶18

The order assailed in the Appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 19/20 October 2022. However, according to the Applicant, though the order was dictated in the open Court on 19 and 20 October 2022, the same came to be uploaded on 18 August 2023. This fact is borne out from an endorsement appearing at the foot of each page of the judgment, which shows that the same was actually uploaded on the website on 18 August 2023. Thus, the order itself was not available for being challenged till 18 August 2023.

¶19

It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that it was unaware of uploading of the impugned judgment and order and that it acquired knowledge about uploading of the order on 27 September 2023 when the Respondent wrote a communication to the Applicant. The Applicant thus acquired knowledge about the

¶20

k Page No. 2 of 4

¶21

k 3/4 31 ia 1681.24 in arappl db os.doc

¶22

impugned judgment and order on 27 September 2023. The Appeal is however lodged on 7 February 2024.

¶23

In the Additional Affidavit, it is pleaded that after acquiring knowledge about uploading of the impugned judgment and order on 27 September 2023, the Legal Department of Municipal Corporation put up office note dated 3 October 2023 to the concerned Department alongwith copy of the judgment. That Sewerage Operation Department discussed the matter with higher authorities and on 13 October 2023, the Executive Engineer - Sewerage Operation Department forwarded a note to the Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer of Sewerage Operation Department for filing of Appeal. It is thus pleaded that some time was spent in seeking approvals at hierarchical levels of the Municipal Corporation and after seeking necessary approvals and vetting of the draft of the Appeal, the same was ultimately lodged on 7 February 2024.

¶24

In our view, the Applicant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the Appeal. Additionally, it is also noticed that the impugned judgment has been corrected by the learned Single Judge by order dated 18 April 2024 and modified judgment has thereafter been uploaded. This is yet another reason which warrants condonation of delay in filing the Appeal.

¶25

Page No. 3 of 4

¶26

¶27

k 4/4 31 ia 1681.24 in arappl db os.doc

¶28