Bombay High Court
RADHA KRISHAN SHARMA THR. POA BHUVAN SHARMAversusHARIHAR VAIKUNTH NAYAK AND ANR
- Disposal
- Disposed of
Holding
The two‑day delay is condoned and the appeal under the Arbitration Act is to be registered.
Summary
The applicant sought condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act against a district court judgment dismissing his Section 34 application. The judgment was delivered on 29‑08‑2022, making the 90‑day limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act expire on 26‑11‑2022, while the appeal was filed on 28‑11‑2022. The applicant argued that the time taken to obtain a certified copy (05‑09‑2022 to 20‑09‑2022) effectively eliminated any real delay. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s guidance in Government of Maharashtra v Borse Brothers (2021 SCC 460) that condonation is permissible in exceptional cases. Finding that the delay was merely two days and was caused by bona‑fide legal advice, the court condoned the delay, disposed of the condonation application, and ordered the appeal to be registered subject to clearance of office objections.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of two days in filing an appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act can be condoned despite the 90‑day limitation under Article 116 of the Limitation Act
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Government of Maharashtra v Borse Brothers applies to the present case
Legislation cited
- Arbitration Act — s. 34, 37(2)
- Limitation Act — s. Article 116
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Appeal
- Condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- Section 37
- Section 34
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1751
14 MCA 547 2023
Sonam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO.547 OF 2023
IN
APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO.2542 OF 2022 (F)
RADHA KRISHAN SHARMA THR. POA
BHUVAN SHARMA ... APPLICANT
Versus
HARIHAR VAIKUNTH NAYAK AND ANR ... RESPONDENTS
Mr. Atul Sadre, Advocate for the Applicant.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
DATED :- 28th August, 2026
P.C.:
1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing an
Appeal under Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act against the
Judgment of the District Court dated 29.08.2022 dismissing the
Applicant's application under Section 34 of the said Act.
2. According to the Applicant, the Judgment of the District
Court, having been passed on 29.08.2022, limitation in terms of
Article 116 of the Limitation Act, which is 90 days, would expire
on 26.11.2022 and the Appeal came to be filed on 28.11.2022.
According to the learned Advocate for the Applicant, since the
application for condonation of delay, if one deducts the time taken
for the certified copy being issued, i.e., the date on which the
application was made, i.e. on 05.09.2022 and the date when the
Page 1 of 2
28th August, 2026
14 MCA 547 2023
copy was delivered on 20.09.2022, there would be practically no
delay in filing this Appeal.
3. On considering the observations of the Supreme Court in
Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V/s
Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited reported
in 2021 6 SCC 460, made in para 63, the delay in filing Appeals
under Section 37 would have to be condoned in exceptional cases
where they are filed beyond the period of 90 days under Article
116 of the Limitation Act.
4. Considering the specific facts of this case, in my opinion,
there is practically no delay in filing the Appeal. In any event, the
delay of two days, if one reckons the limitation from the date of
passing of the Judgment, was due to the bona fide advice given by
the Advocate that the limitation was 90 days and would expire
beyond 28.11.2022. Considering this fact, the delay of 2 days
stands condoned. Misc. Civil Application No. 547 of 2023 stands
disposed of. Appeal under Arbitration Act No. 2542 of 2022(F)
shall be registered, provided all office objections are cleared within
two weeks.
VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Page 2 of 2
28th August, 2026
Checking your session…