Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OSMANABAD MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. OSMANABAD AND ORS.versusBibhishan Rama Gunvare
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The delay is condoned and the award is modified to grant interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the remainder of the judgment left unchanged.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Medium Project Division and others filed a series of civil applications seeking condonation of a 2,866‑day delay in preferring first appeals and rectification of an award of interest dated 13‑09‑2017. The applicants argued that the award of interest was contrary to the law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016). The High Court found no malafide intent and therefore condoned the delay, allowing the civil applications for delay. It partially allowed the first appeals and modified paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment to award interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as per the cited precedent. The Court ordered that any amount deposited before the Reference Court be disbursed to the respondents with accrued interest, and disposed of the stay applications.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 2,866 days in filing first appeals can be condoned under law.
- Whether the interest awarded in the impugned judgment is illegal and requires modification in line with State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
- Whether the court can modify the award to incorporate interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 28, 34
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- interest award
- arbitration
- modification of award
- civil appeals
- public exchequer
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3337
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/-
Checking your session…