UNITED OF INDIA Vs. BOMBAY AMMONIA (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the Union of India against the judgment of Additional District Judge Dr. Naipal Singh, dated December 12, 2004 By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Judge upheld the objections of the respondent to an arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator Shri Shiv Prakash dated January 31, 1989 and consequently declined to make the award a rule of court.

(2.) Admittedly, the appeal against the impugned judgment is barred by time and the delay is of about 12 months. It is the appellant's own case that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was ready with the Registry on January 27, 2003 but it was not collected till August 8, 2003 and even thereafter no legal opinion was sought from the Government Counsel till September 29, 2003. The Government Counsel gave his opinion on March 11, 2004 Thereafter, the file was processed for appointing another counsel and it was only on May 26, 2004 that a counsel was appointed who filed the appeal on August 3, 2004.

(3.) The above dates speak for themselves. They reflect the cavalier manner in which the file was processed without any sense of urgency. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his case for condonation of delay has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 3 Supreme Court Cases 132 State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and ors. The said judgment says that expression 'sufficient cause' should be considered with pragmatism and insistence on explaining each day's delay should not be pressed. However, insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, they do not qualify for a pragmatic approach as stated by the Supreme Court. No explanation has been rendered by the appellant why when the certified copy was ready for delivery on January 27, 2003, the delivery was not taken till August 8, 2003. Nothing has been stated as to why even after obtaining the certified copy on August 8, 2003, no legal opinion was sought till September 29, 2003. I am also not told why it had taken six months to obtain legal opinion and why even after receiving legal opinion on March 11, 2004, the Government Counsel was appointed on May 26, 2004 There is also no explanation why the Government Counsel filed the appeal on August 3, 2004.