Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OSMANABAD MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. OSMANABAD AND ORS.versusMadhukar Uttam Dain

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Court condoned the delay, modified the award to award interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, and ordered disbursement of the deposited amount with accrued interest.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division filed a series of civil applications seeking condonation of a 2,866‑day delay in preferring first appeals and challenging a specific paragraph of an arbitral award that granted interest contrary to established law. The respondents did not contest the applications, and the Court noted that the delay had implications for the public exchequer but found no malafide intent. Relying on the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, the Court held that the award of interest must conform to Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the first appeals, replaced paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment with a clause directing interest as per the cited precedent, and ordered the disbursement of deposited amounts with accrued interest. The civil applications for condonation of delay were granted, and the applications for stay were disposed. The judgment thus rectified the interest award while upholding the remainder of the original award.

Issues considered

Whether the 2,866‑day delay in filing first appeals can be condoned.
Whether the interest clause in the arbitral award complies with the law as interpreted in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
Whether the impugned paragraph of the award should be modified and the deposited amount disbursed with interest.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 28, 34

Subjects

condonation of delay
arbitration award
interest under arbitration law
modification of judgment
public exchequer
civil application
stay order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3334
                                            1              77-CA.12028-25 & ors.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            77 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12028 OF 2025
                                       IN FAST/32457/2025

                       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OSMANABAD MEDIUM
                        PROJECT DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND OTHERS
                                         VERSUS
                            MARUTI AMBU MASTUD AND ANOTHER

                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12030 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32460/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12029 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32457/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                        12047 OF 2025 IN FAST/32484/2025 WITH CIVIL
                      APPLICATION NO. 12055 OF 2025 IN FAST/32487/2025
                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12056 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32487/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12053 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32490/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                        12042 OF 2025 IN FAST/32478/2025 WITH CIVIL
                      APPLICATION NO. 12043 OF 2025 IN FAST/32478/2025
                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12054 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32490/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12037 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32469/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                        12038 OF 2025 IN FAST/32472/2025 WITH CIVIL
                      APPLICATION NO. 12039 OF 2025 IN FAST/32472/2025
                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12040 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32475/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12041 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32475/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                        12044 OF 2025 IN FAST/32481/2025 WITH CIVIL
                      APPLICATION NO. 12045 OF 2025 IN FAST/32481/2025
                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12046 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32484/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12031 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32460/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                        12032 OF 2025 IN FAST/32463/2025 WITH CIVIL
                      APPLICATION NO. 12033 OF 2025 IN FAST/32463/2025
                         WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12034 OF 2025 IN
                    FAST/32466/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12035 OF
                     2025 IN FAST/32466/2025 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
                               12036 OF 2025 IN FAST/32469/2025
                                                 ...
                      Advocate for Applicants : Ms. Sunita Dashrathrao Shelke
                        AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. N. Morampalle.
                         Advocate for respective Respondents/Claimants in
                       CA/12033/2025 : Mr. V. V. Ingale h/f Mr. S. D. Kaldate.
                                                 ...
                              2                77-CA.12028-25 & ors.odt




                            CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                            DATE : 23.01.2026

PER COURT :-


1.    Heard Ms. Shelke for the applicants and Mr. Ingale

holding for Mr. Kaldate in First Appeal Stamp No.32463 of

2025 for respondents/claimants. Respondents in other appeals

are served but none appears.


2.    It is already indicated by this Court while issuing notices

to the respondents that the applications for condonation of

delay as well as the merits of the first appeals are dealt with on

the next date. The grievance of the applicant/acquiring body

on the merits of the matters is very restricted and founded on

settled legal position.


3.    Applicants seek to condone delay of 2866 days in

preferring first appeals.    The averments of the applications

have not been controverted by the respondents. There is no

contest to the applications. The condonation of delay has

repercussions on public exchequer. I find no reason to infer

any malafides on the part of the applicants/acquiring body to

prefer appeals belatedly.         The delay stands condone. Civil

applications for delay are allowed.
                            3                77-CA.12028-25 & ors.odt


4.    Learned counsel Ms. Shelke would point out paragraph

No.5 of common impugned judgment and award dated

13.09.2017 to show the illegality committed by the reference

Court. It is evident that award of interest is not in consonance

with law laid down in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs.

Kailash   Shiva   Rangari   [2016    AIR    (Bom.)     141] .   The

rectification to that extent is solicited by the appellants in the

appeals. There is no grievance in respect of the rest of the

award.


5.    First appeals are allowed partly.


6.    The paragraph No.5 of impugned judgment and award

shall be replaced by following clause :


      “The appellants shall be entitled to interest under

      Section 28 and 34 from the date of award as per

      law laid down in the judgment of Full Bench in

      case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva

      Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141].

      Save and except above modification. Rest of the

      impugned judgment and award shall stand

      unaltered.”
                              4               77-CA.12028-25 & ors.odt


7.      The amount deposited by the appellant/acquiring body

before the Reference Court shall be disbursed to the

respondents/claimants with accrued interest if not disbursed

earlier.


8.      Civil applications for stay are disposed of accordingly.




                                        (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

                                  ...

vmk/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…