LexGOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 193 [2021] 3 S.C.R. 193 193 GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2021) MARCH 19, 2021 [R. F. NARIMAN, B. R. GAVAI AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:s. 37 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Appealable orders – Limitation period for filing appeal – Condonation of delay in filing appeal u/s. 37 – Held: Object of speedy disposal is sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the CC Act, for appeals filed u/s. 37 of the 1996 Act that are governed by Arts, 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or s. 13(1A) of the CC Act – s. 13(1A) of the CC Act lays down a period of limitation of 60 days uniformly for all appeals that are preferred u/s.37 of the Act – Delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule – In a fit case in which a party has acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay can be condoned – Expression “sufficient cause” is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself – Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts. 116 and 117. Limitation Act, 1963: s. 5 – Application of s. 5, to appeals u/ s. 37 of the 1996 Act and to s. 13(1A) of the CC Act – Held: s. 37 when read with s. 43 thereof, makes it clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to appeals filed u/s. 37 – Appeal u/ s. 37 where specified value within the meaning of the CC Act is below 3 lakhs, are governed by Arts. 116 and 117 – Arts. 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act provide for a limitation period of 90 days and 30 days, for appeal to a High Court or an intra-High Court appeal – Thus, s. 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the said appeals, both by virtue of s. 43 of the 1996 Act and s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act – Arts. 116, 117, s. 29(2) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015. s. 5 – Application of, to appeals u/s. 13(1A) of the CC Act providing a uniform 60-day period of limitation – Held: A middle A B C D E F G H 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 3 S.C.R. course to be adopted between the N.V. International’s case which does not allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and an open- ended provision in which any amount of delay can be condoned, provided sufficient cause is shown – Maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat-liberal construction should be put upon written instruments, to be followed – Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Constitution of India – Art. 141 – Binding precedent – N.V. International v. State of Assam’s case applied the provisions of s. 5 of the Limitation Act and held that no condonation of delay could take place beyond 120 days – Whether the hard and fast rule applied by this Court in N.V. International’s case, is correct in law – Held: N.V. International’s case while determining limitation period for filing appeal u/s. 37 did not notice the provisions of the CC Act at all and can be said to be per incuriam on this count - Period of 90 days plus 30 days and not thereafter mentioned in s. 34(3) of the 1996 Act cannot now apply, the limitation period for filing of appeals under the CC Act being 60 days and not 90 days – Thus, N.V. International’s case has been wrongly decided and is overruled – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss. 37 and 34(3) – Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The requirement of an arbitral procedure which is efficient and the minimising of the supervisory role of courts in arbitral process would certainly show that one of the main objectives of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996is the speedy disposal of disputes through the arbitral process. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act is important. Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when read with section 43 thereof, makes it clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act would apply to appeals that are filed under section 37. Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act provide for a limitation period of 90 days and 30 days, depending upon whether the appeal is from any other court to a High Court or an intra-High Court appeal. There can be no doubt whatsoever that section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to the said appeals, both by virtue of section 43 of the Arbitration Act and by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. [Para 15, 23][210-D-E; 222- C-E] A B C D E F G H 195 Consolidated Engg. Enterprises
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.