Patna High Court
Arjun Engicon Pvt. Ltd.versusEast Central Railway through Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)/East Central Railway, Mugalsarai
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the 6‑month‑10‑day delay could not be condoned and dismissed the application for condonation, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
Arjun Engicon Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial appeal against East Central Railway but delayed filing the appeal by 6 months and 10 days beyond the deadline prescribed under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The appellant sought condonation of this delay, citing confusion over the respondent's alleged assurance to pay a principal award with interest. The Court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers (2021) 6 SCC 460, which holds that delays beyond the statutory period may be condoned only as an exception and only when the party acted bona‑fide without negligence. Finding the appellant’s reasons vague and the delay excessive, the Court dismissed the condonation application and consequently dismissed the appeal. The appeal could not proceed further.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court can condone a delay of 6 months and 10 days in filing an appeal under Section 13(1‑A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Whether the appellant acted bona‑fide and without negligence to justify condonation.
- Whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed despite the untimely filing.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 13(1-A)
- Limitation Act — s. Articles 116 and 117
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- commercial appeal
- Section 13(1‑A)
- Commercial Courts Act
- bona fide
- Supreme Court precedent
- Arbitration Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.4 of 2024
======================================================
Arjun Engicon Pvt. Ltd. J-117, P.C. Colony, P.S. Kankarbagh, District Patna-
800020, through its Director Ravi Bhushan, Male, aged about 50 years, S/o
Late Arjun Singh, resident of J-117, P.C. Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S.
Kankarbagh, District Patna.
... ... Appellant
Versus
East Central Railway through Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction)/East
Central Railway, Mugalsarai P.S. Mugalsarai, District Chandauli (U.P.).
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Senior Counsel
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
5 02-02-2026 I.A. No. 1 of 2026 in Commercial Appeal (DB) No.
4 of 2024
This interlocutory application has been filed seeking
condonation of delay of 6 months and 10 days in filing of the
present appeal.
2. The reasons for delayed filing of the appeal are
stated in paragraphs ‘5’ and ‘6’ of the application which we
reproduce hereunder for a ready reference:-
“5. That the appellant has not filed appeal
within limitation period due to the
respondent authority has discuss the issue
and assurance to pay Principal Award
Amount with interest. But therefore the
respondent authority has refused to pay
(As per Award).
6. That therefore the appellant has
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.4 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
approached before learned Advocate and
file handed over to file appeal.”
3. Apparently, getting confused with the language of
paragraph ‘5’, we called upon learned counsel for the appellant
to explain as to what would be the actual translation of the
statements made in paragraph ‘5’ of the application. At this
stage, learned counsel submits that there are typographical and
grammatical errors which he could not correct while filing the
application. We regret that such an application is coming from
the office of a public undertaking.
4. Be that as it may, it appears on perusal of the
records that in the present appeal, the impugned order was
passed on 21.07.2023. An application for getting certified copy
of the impugned order was filed on 27.07.2023 whereafter the
notification regarding requirement for folio was made on
03.08.2023, the folios were supplied on 04.08.2023 and the
certified copy of the impugned order was delivered on
04.08.2023. In this way, altogether 9 days were taken in supply
of the certified copy of the impugned order. In terms of Section
13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act of 2015’), the appeal was required to be
presented on or before 30.09.2023. This appeal has been
presented for the first time on 10.04.2024, therefore, there is a
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.4 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
delay of 6 months and 10 days.
5. It is no longer a res integra that Section 13(1-A) of
the Act of 2015 does not provide for any provision empowering
the Court to condone the delay in filing of an appeal. This aspect
of the matter has been well discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water
Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer
Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Private Ltd.
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 460. Having considered the entire
scheme of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 and the Act of 2015, their Lordships of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed in paragraph ‘63’ of the judgment 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
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.4 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
party’s inaction, negligence or laches.”
6. Keeping in view the aforementioned position in law
and the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph
‘63’ of the judgment in case of Borse Brothers (supra), we are
of the considered opinion that this inordinate delay of 6 months
and 10 days is not fit to be allowed. The delay is such that it has
definitely given rise to some right to the other side. The reasons
shown in paragraph ‘5’ of the interlocutory application are
completely vague, it leads nowhere. The appellant is unable to
show that it has otherwise acted bonafide and the delay is not
because of any negligence on its part. In this view of the matter,
we dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay.
7. I.A. No. 1 of 2026 stands dismissed.
8. As a result of dismissal of the application seeking
condonation of delay, the appeal cannot proceed and is
dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Praveen Kumar, J)
lekhi/-
U
Checking your session…