In the present Appeal, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Appeal on the ground of delay stating that the reasons mentioned therein is not a sufficient cause for delay.

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the Final Order/Judgement dated 01.07.2023 passed by the Ld. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. District Court") in the OMP(COMM) No. 108 of 2023 titled "Union of India v. M/s Rajiv Aggarwal (Engineers and Contractors)" (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Order"). 

By way of the Impugned Order,  Ld. District Court had dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 

Brief Facts leading to the present Appeal are: -
  • Northern Railway invited tender for construction of Boundary Wall, Road Wheel Lathe, other works at Coaching Terminal and Diesel Shed at Shakur Basti.
  • The total accepted cost of the Tender was Rs. 2,50,67,545/-.
  • The contract was formally awarded to the Respondent on 16.12.2015 and the completion date was 15.09.2016.
  • The Railways had terminated the said contract on 13.06.2016. According to the Respondent, the termination of the contract was illegal.
  • This dispute arose due to delay in completion of project, which according to Respondent herein was attributable to Appellant herein and vice versa.
  • In view of the said dispute, the Respondent herein invoked the Arbitration Clause. The said Arbitration was referred to Delhi International Arbitration Centre and a sole Arbitrator was appointed.
  • The Ld. Arbitrator, by way of Award dated 15.06.2018, which was pronounced on 24.07.2018, was pleased to award certain claims of the Respondent herein.
  • Thereafter, the said Award was challenged by way of Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Ld. District Court.
  • Ld. District Court was pleased to dismiss the Petition of the Appellant herein on the ground that Ld. Arbitrator had duly explained the reasons for arriving at its decision and the reasoning provided in the Award is just, fair and reasonable.
  • Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant herein approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by way of the Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, after a delay of 613 days.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court was of the opinion that the Time Period for filing the Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is governed by Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which permits filing of such Appeal within 60 days from the date of Judgement and is also governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act.

To reach this conclusion and frame this opinion, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court perused certain judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the decision of coordinate bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court: -
  • Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 6 SCC 460]
  • N. V. International v. State of Assam [(2020) 2 SCC 109]
  • Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. [(2020) 2 SCC 111]
  • Union of India v. Associated Constructions Co. [(2019) SCC OnLine Del 10797]
Thereafter, hearing the reasons for delay of 613 days i.e., initially the matter was marked to different Panel Counsel of the Railways and the file movement constituted delays and relying upon the Judgement of the Coordinate Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delco Infrastructures Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Intec Capital Ltd. & Anr. [2025 SCC OnLine Del 2158], the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the Appeal of the Appellant herein on the ground of limitation stating that a mere movement in file is not a sufficient cause for delay.

STATUTES INVOLVED

  • INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872
  • ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
  • COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
  • LIMITATION ACT
COUNSEL WHO APPEARED
  • Mr. Farman Ali, Mr. Taha Yasin, Ms. Usha Jamnal and Mr. Dhruv Arora, Advocates for Appellant
  • None for Respondent
IMPORTANT LINKS
This is simple Text for Article.
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter, or join our WhatsApp Group. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter for Email Updates. MyLawman always tries to maintain the accuracy and correctness of the post. MyLawman does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the Posts. The post has been shared as we received it from our staff and the submission form.