P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Jammu & Kashmir State Power Development Corporation v. K J M C Global Market (India) Limited - (High Court of Delhi) (09 Mar 2017)

When a decree or order is of High Court and an appeal is to be filled in same court, period of limitation is of 30 days from date of decree or order

MANU/DE/0603/2017

Limitation

Appeal has been filed challenging judgment passed by a Single Judge whereby the arbitral award passed by sole arbitrator was upheld. Along with said appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 35 days for re-filing the appeal was filed.

Affidavit as well as application for condonation filed on behalf of Appellant clearly showed a lax approach on part of Appellants which in fact militates against bonafides of Petitioner entitling it for condonation of delay. Even the appeal filed on 8th July, 2016 was filed belatedly when no agitation was ongoing. If Appellant was serious in proceeding with the matter, Appeal should have been filed on the date of re-opening of the Court. However, same was not done and no sufficient reasons also have been provided for the same. Additionally, it was apparent that, Appellant was not pursuing matter diligently with its counsel, since first draft of appeal was prepared only on 30th June, 2016, when limitation itself expired on 8th June, 2016.

It is now well settled that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963/1963 Act apply to all proceedings under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996/1996 Act including both in court and arbitration proceedings except to the extent expressly excluded by the provisions of 1996 Act. Supreme Court in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, observed that, Section 37 of 1996 Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for filing appeals.

Limitation period for appeals under Section 37 of the 1996 Act shall be computed in terms of Article 117 of 1963 Act which provides that when a decree or order is of the High Court and an appeal is to be filled in the same court, period of limitation is of 30 days from date of decree or order. Present appeal was filed on 2nd September, 2016 and therefore there is delay of 86 days. No sufficient cause for such delay is forthcoming. Appeal is dismissed being barred by limitation.

Tags : DELAY   CONDONATION   SUFFICIENT CAUSE  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved