N.D.M.C. Vs. AIRTECH (P) LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 6th May, 1997 whereby the petition of the respondent (petitioner in suit) under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and Mr. Justice D.R. Khanna, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed as an arbitrator for adjudication and determination of claims. An application for obtaining certified copy of the judgment was filed by the appellant on 16th May, 1997 and the certified copy was prepared on 20th May, 1997. The delivery of the certified copy from the Registry was obtained by the appellant on 2nd June, 1997. The appeal was filed on 28th August, 1997 and again re-filed on 4th and 6th September, 1997.

(2.) THERE was delay of eighty days in filing the appeal. Thus, CM-3166/97 has been filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Only two paragraphs of the application may be said to be of some relevance which read as under :

(3.) IN our considered view, the decision relied upon has no applicability. It is not a case where anyone had kept back the file. It is also not a case where there were any manoeuvres. The Supreme Court or this court has not held that even in absence of any cause, delay has to be condoned. It is no doubt true that this Court has been adopting very liberal approach while dealing with applications seeking condonation of delay but that does not mean that the moment an application is filed by a public authority though without disclosing any cause, the court has no option but to condone the delay. The delay cannot be condoned on mere asking. Reverting now to the present application; who discussed the matter; when was it discussed; when was decision taken and when was the file sent to the counsel for filing the appeal, are factors which are all absent from the application. We can understand the liberal approach while considering application seeking condonation of delay if some facts are pleaded in the application.