Allowed¶38

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Ms M K Dhiroomal Associates Jv

Gauhati HC16 Mar 2026I.A.(Civil)/3015/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 331 days; writ appeal; sufficient cause; Gauhati High Court; I.A.(Civil)/3015/2024; Union of India and N.F. Railway officials versus M K Dhiroomal Associates JV; WP(C) No. 6103/2012; vitiation amount Rs.25,21,881.27; Final Vitiation Statement dated 08.12.2010; no novation of contract; delay neither deliberate nor negligent; adjudication on merits; appeal to be listed 02.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the delay of 331 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal; Registry directed to process the connected appeal and, if found defect-free, list it under the appropriate heading, preferably on 02.04.2026. ¶38

The Union of India and 6 Ors. Vs Ms M K Dhiroomal Associates Jv — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause justifying condonation of the delay of 331 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 6103/2012.

¶24

Court's answer

The length of the delay is a relevant factor in deciding an application for condonation of delay; however, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, and sufficient cause does not mean a mere explanation given superficially.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The applicants sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay and substantiated that, for reasons beyond their control, they were prevented from approaching the Court promptly; there was no negligence, lack of bona fide, or inaction on their part.

¶31

Key takeaways

The delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants; in the absence of gross laches or mala fide intention, the Court would lean in favour of adjudication on merits.ratio¶35
The explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondent by the delay.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory application by the Union of India and North East Frontier Railway authorities seeking condonation of a 331-day delay in preferring a writ appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 6103/2012, whereby the Single Judge had interfered with N.F. Railway's action to recover a vitiation amount of Rs.25,21,881.27 under the Final Vitiation Statement dated 08.12.2010, treating the recovery as unilateral for want of novation of the contract. Held: the length of delay is a relevant factor, but where sufficient causes are shown the Court's discretion to condone delay is to be exercised, 'sufficient cause' meaning more than a superficial explanation. On the facts, the applicants sufficiently explained the delay as arising from bona fide circumstances beyond their control; there was no negligence, lack of bona fide, inaction, gross laches or mala fide intention, and no prejudice to the respondent. Delay of 331 days condoned; interlocutory application allowed and disposed of; Registry to process the connected appeal and, if defect-free, list it preferably on 02.04.2026. (Division Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and A.D. Choudhury, J.; judgment authored by A.D. Choudhury, J.)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010197472024

2026:GAU-AS:3869-DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3015/2024

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECY MINISTRY OF RAILWAY RAILWAY BOARD RAILWAY BHAWAN NEW DELHI

¶7

2: NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER NORTHEAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS GHY- 12.

¶8

3: THE CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONS THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS MALIGAON GHY- 12.

¶9

4: THE CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONS- 3 THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS GHY- 12.

¶10

5: THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONS - 2 THE NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS GHY- 12.

¶11

6: THE ASSTT. ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONS- 4 BOGIBEEL NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS SILAPATHAR.

¶12

7: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CIVIL ENGINEER G RAILWAY BOARD

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAYS GHY- 12

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

MS M K DHIROOMAL ASSOCIATES JV

¶17

A JOINT VENTURE OF MS M K ENGINEERING AND MS SHIROOMAL AND SONS PVT LTD OFFICE AT WEST GUWAHATI MALIGAON 11

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA,

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M BISWAS, MS. A K CHOPHI,J SINGPHO,A GHOSAL

¶20

– B E F O R E –

¶21

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶22

17-03-2026

¶23

(A.D. Choudhury, J.)

¶24

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicants seeking condonation of the delay of 331 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal against the judgment & order dated 21.09.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 6103/2012.

¶25

2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned Single Judge interfered with the action on the part of the respondent N.F. Railway in seeking to recover the vitiation amount of Rs.25,21,881.27 in terms of the Final Vitiation Statement dated 08.12.2010, to be a unilateral one as there was no novation of the contract at any time.

¶26

3. In paragraphs Nos. 2 to 6 of this application, the

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

applicants have cited the reasons for the delay in preferring the connected Writ Appeal.

¶29

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties relying on the affidavit in opposition filed argues that the applicants have failed to show “sufficient cause” in justifying the delay of 331 days in filing the Writ Appeal and that the the delay is attributable to the lackadaisical approach of the appellant in filing the connected writ appeal and as such, the instant interlocutory application is liable to be dismissed.

¶30

5. The length of the delay is indeed a relevant factor to be considered when deciding an application for condonation of delay. However, when sufficient causes are shown, the discretion vested in the Courts to condone delay is to be exercised, though sufficient cause shall not mean a mere explanation given superficially.

¶31

6. In the case in hand, we have found that the applicants have sufficiently explained the reasons for the delay and have substantiated that, for reasons beyond their control, they were prevented from approaching the Court promptly and within the prescribed period of limitation. We do not see any negligence, lack of bona fide, or inaction on the part of the applicants.

¶32

7. Based on the available materials, it cannot be said that the applicants were not diligent or that the delay was intentional.

¶33

8. Thus, having considered the explanation tendered by

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

the applicants, this Court is satisfied that the delay occasioned in preferring the connected Writ Appeal was neither deliberate nor actuated by negligence but resulted from bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the applicants. In the absence of gross laches or mala fide intention attributable to the applicants, this Court would lean in favour of the adjudication on merits.

¶36

9. In the given facts of the present case, the explanation furnished inspires confidence, and no prejudice is demonstrated to have been caused to the respondent by such delay.

¶37

10. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and having satisfied that the causes shown are sufficient to condone the delay of 331 days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Ordered accordingly.

¶38

11. The instant Interlocutory Application stands allowed and disposed of.

¶39

12. The Registry shall process the connected appeal and, if found defect-free, list it under the appropriate heading, preferably on 02.04.2026.

¶40

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Ms M K Dhiroomal Associates Jv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and 6 Ors. v. Ms M K Dhiroomal Associates Jv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopanjoy Naiding Vs State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Farmud Ali Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The State of Assam and Ors. Vs Bhupen Chandra Goswami Alias Bhupen Goswam

Jakir Hossain and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 69 Ors.

Pratima Chetia Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited Vs Smt Bharati Kalita