Bombay High Court
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR ARVIND KALEversusROHIDAS CHUDAMAN PATIL AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- ARUN R PEDNEKER
Holding
The Court held that the 630‑day delay could not be condoned and dismissed the appeals.
Summary
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) filed three appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, but the appeals were lodged 630 days after the impugned orders. NHAI sought condonation of the delay, citing internal administrative approvals and financial arrangements as reasons. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers (2021) which holds that delays beyond the statutory periods may be condoned only as an exception and not as a rule, and only when the party has acted bona‑fide without negligence. Applying this principle, the Court found that the 630‑day delay was excessive and the reasons offered were insufficient. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications/appeals, refusing to condone the delay.
Issues considered
- Can a delay of 630 days in filing appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act be condoned?
- Do the reasons provided by NHAI constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of such delay?
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 37
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — s. 13(1A)
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 116, 117
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 37
- Delay condonation
- Limitation Act
- Commercial Courts Act
- NHAI
- High Court
- Procedural law
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:12544
982, 983, 984.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
982 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13685 OF 2021
IN ARBAST/26537/2021
National Highways Authority Of India Represented By Its Project
Director Arvind R. Kale
VERSUS
Chandrakant Batesingh Raghuwanshi And Another
…
983 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13688 OF 2021
IN ARBAST/26534/2021
National Highways Authority Of India Represented By Its Project
Director Arvind Kale
VERSUS
Rohidas Chudaman Patil And Another
984 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13689 OF 2021
IN ARBAST/15885/2021
National Highways Authority Of India Project Implementation Unit
Dhule Thr Project Director
VERSUS
Raghunath Bhagwan Chaudhary And Another
...
Mr. D. S. Manorkar, Advocate for Applicant
***
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J
DATE : MARCH 24, 2026
PC :
1. There is delay of 630 days in filing these Appeals. The
reasons mentioned for delay are noted in paragraphs 8 to 11, as under:
“8. That after receipt of the above impugned order
under challenge was then discussed, scrutinized and
examined by the office of applicant with the legal
PAGE 1 OF 3
982, 983, 984.odt
consultant. That after being satisfied that the above
impugned order requires to be challenged before
Hon'ble High Court it was decided to send the proposal
for approval from the competent authority of NHAI.
9. That the office of applicant requires administrative
approval, for every important decision to be taken, thus
in pursuance to obtain approval for challenging the
above impugned order before appellate forum the
communication was sent to the Regional Office of NHAI
at Nagpur. 4
10. That above proposal and the impugned order was
then further scrutinized and discussed at the R.O. office
of NHAI at Nagpur and then administrative approval
for challenging the above impugned order was
communicated to the office of applicant. Thereafter the
office of applicant issued further necessary instructions
to its legal counsel about the same.
11. That thereafter the draft of appeal was submitted by
the legal counsel was studied, discussed and finalized
and after arrangement for financial approvals for the
payment of court fees some additional time had gone.”
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Government of
Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive
Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. , 2021
(3) SCR 193 has held that section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are
governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A)
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
PAGE 2 OF 3
982, 983, 984.odt
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.
3. Considering the above judgment, delay of 630 days and
reasons mentioned in the application cannot be accepted as a good
ground for condoning delay in filing Applications under Section 37 of the
Act. Accordingly, Applications so also Appeals are dismissed.
(ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)
usm
PAGE 3 OF 3
Checking your session…