Chhattisgarh High Court Refuses To Condone 110-Day Delay In Arbitration Appeal Against PwC
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the Board failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal within the time limit prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act.
A division bench of Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal held that no sufficient cause was shown to justify the delay beyond the prescribed limitation period under the Commercial Courts Act.
“No satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay, and the grounds stated do not constitute “sufficient cause.” The cumulative delay of 110 days, without sufficient cause, falls far outside the permissible bounds of delay under The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is without any merit.”, the court observed.
The dispute arose from an agreement dated February 27, 2013 between the parties, pursuant to which disputes relating to monetary claims were referred to arbitration. A sole arbitrator passed an award on November 24, 2021. Aggrieved, the Board filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court on February 28, 2022, which was dismissed on August 8, 2022.
Under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, the limitation period for filing an appeal is 60 days. However, the Board filed the present appeal only on January 27, 2023, resulting in a delay of 110 days beyond the prescribed period.
The appellant contended that the delay was due to procedural hurdles and time taken in obtaining legal opinion and certified copies. The respondent opposed the plea, arguing that the delay was deliberate and aimed at stalling execution of the arbitral award.
The high court refused to accept the Marketing Board's contentions and held that the explanation offered reflected a casual and negligent approach and did not constitute “sufficient cause.” It emphasised that in commercial disputes, delay can be condoned only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine. The court said:
“Only in a fit case, where a party has acted bonafide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay can be condoned.”
The court rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the arbitration appeal.
For Appellants: Advocate Amrito Das
For Respondent: Advocates Gurmeet Bindra, Sameer Uraon