Administrative Delays Insufficient To Justify 950-Day Delay In Section 34 Appeal Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court bench of Justice Sunder Mohan has held that the administrative reason alone cannot be a reason for condoning the delay of 950 days in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The bench held that delays attributable to administrative factors, such as changes in project management or internal procedural adjustments, do not constitute valid grounds for extending the limitation period for filing an appeal. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to a petition filed by Project Director, NHAI (Petitioner) to seek the condonation of a delay of 950 days in filing an appeal. The Petitioner, in its affidavit supporting the petition, argued that the Principal District and Sessions Judge improperly modified the award passed by the arbitrator by reappraising the evidence, which is prohibited under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Petitioner further contended that it had a strong chance of success in the appeal. It explained that the delay was due to the transfer of case files from the Project Implementation Unit (PIU) in Madurai, which was initially handling the case, to the PIU in Dindigul, which was established on January 22, 2018. Additionally, the Petitioner noted that there was no full-time Director at the PIU in Dindigul which contributed to the delay. It urged the court to condone the delay. In response, M. Mallika Begam (First Respondent) vehemently opposed the petition. She argued that the Petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay merely citing an administrative delay without offering specific details. The Respondent further contended that the extension of the limitation period due to COVID-19 was inapplicable as the Petitioner was required to file the appeal as early as 2018. Observations by the High Court: The High Court noted that the central issue in petition was not the legality of the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge but whether the Petitioner provided sufficient cause for the delay of 950 days in filing the appeal. The High Court noted that while administrative delays and changes in project management may have contributed to the delay, these factors alone are insufficient to justify such a significant delay in filing the appeal. It held that the extension of limitation periods due to COVID-19 is not applicable as the delay in filing the appeal occurred long before the pandemic-related extensions were applicable. The High Court referred to previous judgments where it has been held that administrative reasons alone cannot justify condoning delays. In cases like R.Jeyamani and M.Murguan, the High Court and other Division Benches have held that administrative delays and changes in law do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delays. In another set of cases, such as The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.Karuppiah and another, etc., in C.M.A.(MD) No.104 of 2019, the High Court dismissed delay petitions with comparable reasons. The High Court held that the reasons provided in the affidavit were vague and do not meet the threshold of sufficient cause. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was dismissed. Case Title: The Project Director, National Highways Vs. R.KaThe Project Director, National Highways No.45E & 220, National Highways Authority of India vs M.Mallika Begam and anrCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 334 Case Number: C.M.P.(MD) No.11260 of 2023 in C.M.A. (MD) SR. No.25399 of 2023 Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.P.Karthick Advocate for the Respondent: Mr.R.Govindaraj and Mr.V.Omprakash Date of Judgment: 27.08.2024 Click HereTo Read/Download Order or Judgment

Administrative Delays Insufficient To Justify 950-Day Delay In Section 34 Appeal Under Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996: Madras High Court

Rajesh Kumar

Tags