STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MORYA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil application no. 651 of 2023 is filed by the Public Works Department of the State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "Department") seeking condonation of delay calculated as 187 days in filing appeal under Sec. 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act") read with Sec. 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("Commercial Courts Act"), against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge-2 & Commercial Court, Beed in a proceeding bearing Civil Miscellaneous Application no. 87 of 2018 dtd. 6/5/2022 dismissing the department's application preferred under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act.

(2.) The learned Additional Government Pleader by referring to the application and the additional affidavit filed by the department submitted that the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the appeal are peculiar. The department manned by the personnel has been made to suffer the award because of the misdeeds of its officers and apart from the cause which the department is required to satisfy for condonation of delay, all the happenings throughout this proceeding right from the appointment of the arbitrator, are relevant factors for this Court to exercise its discretion.

(3.) As regards the cause for the delay, Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya, learned AGP would submit that though the department is not entitled to claim any exception and the law of limitation has to be applied equally even against it, there are sufficient circumstances which prevented it from preferring the appeal in time. He would submit that some time was lost to complete the administrative formalities and in seeking instructions and documents. The delay is neither deliberate nor is it intentional. The department was not to gain anything by causing the delay particularly when it is intending to challenge the award which is passed by the sole arbitrator in spite of a stipulation in the clause 3/4/17(iii)(a) that the arbitral tribunal would comprise of three arbitrators; one to be appointed by each of the sides and the third by the two such arbitrators of the parties.