Patna High Court
East Central RailwayversusM/s Pratibha Royal (JV)
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The 85‑day delay is not bona‑fide and cannot be condoned; the interlocutory application and the commercial appeal are dismissed.
Summary
The East Central Railway filed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of an 85‑day delay in filing a commercial appeal under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against a judgment dated 24‑06‑2025 in an arbitration matter. The railway argued that the delay was caused by internal procedural requirements, multi‑level approvals and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order. It relied on Supreme Court precedent (Borse Brothers) and a Delhi High Court decision (United India Insurance) that allow condonation for bona‑fide short delays. The Patna High Court examined the statutory limitation, the Supreme Court’s observations, and its own recent decisions where similar administrative delays were not considered bona‑fide. Finding the reasons vague, procedural and not demonstrating bona‑fide urgency, the Court held that the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the interlocutory application was dismissed and the commercial appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an 85‑day delay beyond the 60‑day limitation for filing a commercial appeal under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can be condoned.
- Whether the reasons given by the railway constitute a bona‑fide cause of delay within the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Borse Brothers.
- Whether precedents such as United India Insurance and the railway’s internal procedural requirements justify condonation.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34, 37
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLIII
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 13(1-A)
- Limitation Act — s. 116, 117
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- commercial appeal
- limitation period
- bona fide
- public authority procedural delay
- Arbitration Act
- Commercial Courts Act
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.18 of 2025
======================================================
1. East Central Railway through Chief Administrative Officer (Construction),
East Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, P.O. and P.S. Mahendru Ghat, Patna,
Bihar.
2. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer (Construction), East
Central Railway, Mahendru Ghat, P.O. and P.S. Mahendru Ghat, Patna,
Bihar.
3. The Chief Engineer (Construction), (South) East Central Railway, having its
office situated at Mahendru Ghat, P.O. and P.S. Mahendru Ghat, Patna,
Bihar.
4. The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway,
Barkakana, P.O. and P.S. Barkakana, Ramgarh, Jharkhand.
... ... Appellants
Versus
M/s Pratibha Royal (JV) a Joint Venture Company having its office at 18 R.N.
Mukherjee Road, 6th Floor, P.O. and P.S. R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-
700001, represented through its authorized signatory namely, Dhananjay
Kumar, S/o late Kamdeo Sharma, resident of Plot no. C-69, Police Colony,
Anisabad, P.O. and P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Senior CGC
Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC
For the Respondent : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 09-02-2026
I.A. No. 1 of 2026
Heard Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
2/11
2. By filing this interlocutory application, the appellants
are seeking condonation of delay of 85 days in filing of the present
commercial appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment dated
24.06.2025 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Patna in
Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 09 of 2024 on an application
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996’).
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits
that the present appeal has been preferred under Section 13(1-A)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act of 2015’). The period of limitation for filing the appeal is 60
days from the date of the judgment or order.
4. It is his submission that in this case, after the delivery
of judgment/order, the appellant filed an application for obtaining
a certified copy of the same on 27.06.2025. The office notified the
requirement of folios on 12.07.2025 which was supplied on
14.07.2025 and the certified copy was made ready for delivery on
14.07.2025. In this way, altogether 18 days’ time were taken in
providing the certified copy. It is his submission that the period of
limitation expired on 10.09.2025. The appeal was presented
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
3/11
through e-filing on 03.12.2025 and the date of final presentation is
04.12.2025. In this background, 85 days’ delay has taken place.
5. To show the bona fide reasons behind the delay,
learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the statements made in paragraphs ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘7’ of the
interlocutory application. His submissions is that the delay has
taken place in movement of files, deliberations on the merits and
in obtaining legal opinions from the Law Officer. Due to this
official procedure requiring multi-level approvals for litigation
involving public funds, the delay has taken place.
6. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the issue
of limitation under Section 13(1-A) of the Act of 2015 came up for
consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department)
Represented by Executive Engineer Vs. M/s Borse Brothers
Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2021) 6 SCC
460. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, upon consideration of the
scheme of the statute, taken a view that if the party has otherwise
acted bonafide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond
such period can in the discretion of the Court be condoned. It is
submitted that in the case of United India Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Bansal Wood Product Private Limited reported in
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
4/11
(2023) 1 High Court Cases (Del) 111, the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has been pleased to condone delay of 76 days in filing of the
appeal for the reason that the counsel for the appellant was unwell
due to which he was unable to instruct his associates or finalise the
appeal himself.
7. It is, thus, submitted that this Court may consider the
reasons provided by the appellants as sufficient and cogent reasons
and condone the delay.
Consideration
8. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant and perused the records. Section 13(1-A) of the Act of
2015 reads as under:-
“Section 13. Appeals from decrees of
Commercial Courts and Commercial
Divisions. (1-A) Any person aggrieved by the
judgment or order of a Commercial Court at
the level of District Judge exercising original
civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be,
Commercial Division of a High Court may
appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division
of that High Court within a period of sixty
days from the date of the judgment or order:
Provided that an appeal shall lie from such
orders passed by a Commercial Division or a
Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
5/11
by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).]”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the
scheme of the statute, the object of speedy disposal sought to be
achieved under the statute and concluded in paragraph ‘63’ of the
judgment in the case of Borse Brothers (supra) as under:-
“63. Given the aforesaid and the object of
speedy disposal sought to be achieved both
under the Arbitration Act and the
Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed
under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that
are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the
Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the
Commercial Courts Act, a 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 otherwise acted bona fide and not in a
negligent manner, a short delay beyond such
period can, in the discretion of the court, be
condoned, always bearing in mind that the
other side of the picture is that the opposite
party may have acquired both in equity and
justice, what may now be lost by the first
party’s inaction, negligence or laches.”
10. Articles 116 and 117 in the Schedule Part X (Second
Division-Appeals) of the Limitation Act prescribes the period of
limitation for filing an appeal against a decree under the Code of
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
6/11
Civil Procedure, 1908. The same has been taken note of and
examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Borse
Brothers (supra). What is culled out from the ratio of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the delay beyond
the prescribed period of limitation is to be condoned by way of
exception and not by way of rule. The party who is looking for the
condonation of delay must have otherwise acted bona fide and not
in a negligent manner. The delay should not be such that the other
side may have acquired rights both in equity and justice. If these
conditions are satisfied then a short delay beyond the said period
can, in the discretion of the Court, be condoned.
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid views of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, this Court has considered the reasons shown in
paragraphs ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘7’ of the interlocutory application. Those
are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:-
“5. That as part of official Railway procedure
requiring multi-level approvals for litigation
involving public funds, the certified copy was
forwarded internally on 16/07/2025 for
processing through competent authorities
including Dy.CE/Con, CE/Con, CAO/Con, and
AGM/ECR.
6. That the file movement involved detailed
deliberations on merits, legal opinions from
Law Officer, finance concurrence, and final
approval from AGM/ECR/HJP, consuming time
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
7/11
due to hierarchical official protocols followed
diligently without negligence.
7. That on 01/12/2025, after obtaining necessary
approvals and drafting by counsel following
discussions, the Commercial Appeal was filed
before this Hon’ble Court. ”
12. Recently, in Commercial Appeal No. 3 of 2024
(The Union of India and Another Vs. M/s Oberoi Thermit Pvt.
Ltd), this Court had occasion to consider an application seeking
condonation of delay for a period of 5 months and 23 days. This
Court having noticed the submissions of the Railways which were
not contested by the sole respondent that the order was not
pronounced in the open court, therefore, learned counsel for the
appellant did not know whether the order has been passed on the
date fixed in the matter or not, which led to a delay in obtaining
the certified copy of the order, this Court took a view that there
was no reason on the record to doubt the bona fide of the
appellants, hence, the delay was taken as well explained and it was
condoned.
13. In the present case, however, we find that the only
reason shown by the appellant is that the delay occasioned due to
file movement and with procedural follow up. In such
circumstances, a question arises as to whether the reasons shown
by the appellant may be said to have an element of bona fide so as
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
8/11
to bring this case within the ambit of the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Borse Brothers (supra). We
find that the Act of 2015 came into force as back as on 31st
December, 2015. Even the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Borse Brothers (supra) came in the year
2021.
14. Despite all clarity available under Section 13(1-A) of
the Act of 2015 with regard to the period of limitation for filing the
Commercial Appeal and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court clearly saying that only for bona fide reasons, a short delay
may be condoned, the authorities of the Railways are taking the
matters of filing of appeal leisurely. If the officers of the Railways
do not show urgency to prefer an appeal within the period of
limitation or for some bona fide reasons within a short period
thereafter, they have to blame themselves for this.
15. Recently, in another Commercial Appeal being
Commercial Appeal No. 17 of 2025 (General Manager, East
Central Railways and Others Vs. M/s KEC-DELCO-
VARAHA (JV)), this Court refused to condone the delay of 222
days in filing of the appeal wherein similar kind of reasons were
shown as the cause for delay in filing of the appeal. This Court
held that the delay caused due to procedural compliance and
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
9/11
hierarchical administrative orders cannot be taken as a bona fide
reason. This Court also noticed that in the case of Borse Brothers
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the delay of 131
days beyond the 60 days’ period was a long delay and the appeal
was dismissed. So far as the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd (supra) is
concerned, it appears that in the said case, the appellant was able
to demonstrate that the counsel for the appellant was unwell due to
which he was unable to instruct his associates or finalise the
appeal. Thus, there was no question of taking an adverse view as
to the bona fide of the appellant, therefore, in the opinion of this
Court, the facts of the case in case of United India Insurance Co.
Ltd (supra) were quite different and distinct.
16. This Court is reminded of the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd. and Another Vs. N.R. Vairamani and Another reported in
(2004) 8 SCC 579 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed in paragraph ‘9’ as under:-
“9. Courts should not place reliance on
decisions without discussing as to how the
factual situation fits in with the fact situation of
the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of courts are neither to be read as
Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute
and that too taken out of their context. These
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
10/11
observations must be read in the context in
which they appear to have been stated.
Judgments of courts are not to be construed as
statutes. To interpret words, phrases and
provisions of a statute, it may become
necessary for judges to embark into lengthy
discussions but the discussion is meant to
explain and not to define. Judges interpret
statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They
interpret words of statutes; their words are not
to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving
Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton2 (AC at p. 761) Lord
MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D)
“The matter cannot, of course, be
settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of
Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of
Parliament and applying the rules of
interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to
detract from the great weight to be given to the
language actually used by that most
distinguished judge,…””
17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, we are of
the considered opinion that the delay of 85 days over and above
the period of limitation in the present case remains unexplained.
The explanations offered in paragraphs ‘5’, ‘6’ and ‘7’ of the
interlocutory application are completely vague and sweeping kind
of reasons shown which are a kind of general statements
introduced in the application seeking condonation of delay in a
2. [1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)]
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.18 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
11/11
routine manner. This Court cannot take such reasons as bona fide
reasons for purpose of condonation of delay keeping in view the
aims and objects of the Act of 1996 and the Act of 2015.
18. We refuse to condone the delay. I.A. No. 1 of 2026 is
dismissed.
19. As a result of dismissal of the I.A., the appeal stands
dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
lekhi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…