SOUTH INDIA SHIPPING AND EXPORT CO Vs. TRIBAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING DEVELOPMENT FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant impugns the Order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the Learned Single Judge, whereby the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('AandC Act') preferred by the Appellant were dismissed on the ground that the Appellant has not been able to disclose any ground to bring his case under Section 34 of the AandC Act.

(2.) ALONG with the Appeal, an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has also been filed for condonation of delay of 433 days in filing the Appeal. According to the Appellant, instead of filing an Appeal, as provided under Section 37 of the AandC Act, the Appellant mistakenly preferred SLP bearing No.CC.6080/2010 against the impugned order. However, vide Order dated 14.05.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appellant to withdraw the Appeal with liberty to seek appropriate remedy under law against the Impugned Order dated 02.04.2009.

(3.) PRINCIPLES enunciated for condonation of delay are well settled. Expression 'sufficient cause' should be given liberal interpretation so as to advance substantial justice between the parties. (Balwant Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685; State of Karnataka Vs. Y. Moideen Kunhi (Dead) By LRs and Others (2009) 13 SCC 192; Ram Nath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123; G.Ramegowda, Major and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore and Basavalingappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142). It is not the length of delay which is material for condonation of delay in filing an appeal but the acceptability of the explanation. There may be cases where a few months' delay may not be condoned as an applicant has no reasonable explanation to offer for the same, yet there are cases where delay of several years has been condoned. (State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752; Ramnath Sao Vs. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195; M.K.Prasad Vs. P. Arumugam 2001 (6) SCC 176; State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and Another 2000 (9) SCC 94; N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123). The law that each day's delay must be explained has mellowed down yet it has to be shown by the applicant that there was neither any gross negligence nor any inaction, nor want of bonafides.