Dismissed

Union of India through Chief Postmaster General v. Phulwanti Devi

Jharkhand HC9 Jan 2020Arb. Appeal/12/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an arbitration appeal and rejected an interim application for condonation of delay. The Court held that a delay of 230 days exceeds the 120-day limit (90 days + 30 days grace period) established by the Supreme Court, making further condonation impermissible.

What did the court decide?

Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2019 and I.A. No. 4871 of 2019 were dismissed and rejected respectively.

Union of India through Chief Postmaster General Vs Phulwanti… — Arbitration | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Arbitration Appeal No. 12 of 2019 With

¶4

I.A. No. 4871 of 2019

¶5

Union of India through Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, Department of Postal, P.O.-Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi duly represented through Assistant Postmaster General, under the office of Chief Postmaster General, Jharkhand Circle, Department of Postal, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, Ranchi-834002 … Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Phulwanti Devi, w/o Sri Ishwari Sahu

¶8

Resident of Bye-Pass Road, Pragati Enclave, Dibdih, New Alkapuri, … P.O. and P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi … Respondent

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶11

--For the Appellant : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : For the Respondent

¶12

4/09.01.2020

¶13

Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

¶14

This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the judgment and order dated 31.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) I, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2013 whereby the application filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, has been rejected.

¶15

An interlocutory application being I.A. No. 4871 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of delay of 230 days in filing the present arbitration appeal. The impugned order is dated 31.05.2018 and the appeal has been filed on 14.05.2019.

¶16

During the course of hearing of this I.A., counsel for the appellant was informed about recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9244 of 2019 (M/S N.V. International Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.) decided on 06.12.2019 wherein it has been held that the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has to

¶17

¶18

be necessarily filed within a period of 90 days with a further period of condonable delay of 30 days i.e. within a total period of 120 days and any further delay cannot be condoned. Counsel for the appellant has gone through the said judgment and is not in a position to advance any argument for condonation of delay of 230 days which is involved in the present appeal

¶19

After hearing the counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the point regarding condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 9244 of 2019 decided on 06.12.2019 wherein it has been clearly observed that so far as the filing of appeal is concerned, Article 116 of the Limitation Act would come into play and ultimately, it has been held in para 5 that a period of 90 days is available to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the grace period of 30 days of condonable delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is available. It has also been held that delay beyond 120 days is not liable to be condoned. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has followed the earlier judgment and order dated 17.09.2018 passed in SLP (C) No. 23155 of 2013 (Union of India Vs. Varindera Const. Ltd.), wherein it has been held as under:

¶20

“… that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, as has been held in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others Vs. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri and Others, AIR 1941 Federal Court 5, and repeatedly followed by our judgments, we feel that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.”

¶21

¶22

Admittedly, in the present case, the delay in filing the appeal is 230 days and considering the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the delay of 230 days cannot be condoned by this Court, therefore, the petition for condonation of delay being I.A. No. 4871 of 2019, is hereby rejected.

¶23

Accordingly, this arbitration appeal is also dismissed.

¶24

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court below through ‘FAX’.

¶25

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶26

Binit/

Union of India through Chief Postmaster General v. Phulwanti Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India through Chief Postmaster General v. Phulwanti Devi

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

Jitendra Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

Ram Bilash Sahu Vs the Union of India through C B I

Central Coalfields Limited Vs the Union of India And Ors.

Prakash Chandra Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand through Vigilance

B.S.Das alias Bhim Sen Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research through Its Administrative Officer Shri Dasmath Murmu Vs Ms Suparna Chemicals Ltd.