Allahabad High Court
VIJAY ARORAversusDELHI CIRCLE STATE BANK STAFF ASSOCIATION CREDIT AND THRIFT SAHKARI SOCIETY LIMITED AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the appellant’s explanation for the delay was false, condonation could not be granted, and the appeal is barred by limitation.
Summary
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking condonation of a 44‑day delay in filing a Section 34 application challenging an arbitral award. The appellant claimed he had no knowledge of the arbitration proceedings and that the award was illegal because the underlying agreement lacked an arbitration clause. The court examined the service of notices, the appellant’s non‑appearance, and the fact that the award was served on him on 8 December 2022, contradicting his claim of ignorance. It found the appellant’s explanation for the delay to be false and misleading, and noted that a Section 34 application cannot be filed beyond the 120‑day limitation period. Consequently, the application for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Issues considered
- Can the appellant’s delay in filing the Section 34 application be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
- Did the appellant have knowledge of the arbitral award and the arbitration proceedings?
- Is the arbitral award unenforceable due to the alleged absence of an arbitration clause in the contract?
- Is the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 barred by limitation?
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34, 34(3), 37
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Limitation
- Condonation of delay
- Section 34 application
- Arbitral award
- Non‑arbitrability
- Arbitration clause
- Section 37 appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND
CONCILIATION ACT 1996 DEFECTIVE No. - 152 of 2026
Vijay Arora
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
Delhi Circle State Bank Staff Association Credit and Thrift Sahkari
Society Limited and 6 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Namit Srivastava, Parth Pandey,
Parul Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal has been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act, 1996') assailing the order dated
21.04.2026, whereby an application (Paper No. 7-C) filed by the
appellant under Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996, registered as Misc. Case
No. 39 of 2023 (Vijay Kumar Arora vs. Delhi Circle State Bank Staff
Association Credit and Thrift Sahkari Society Ltd.), has been rejected.
3. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 44 days.
4. An application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, supported by affidavit of the appellant has
2
ARPLD No. - 152 of 2026
been filed, wherein explanation offered for delay has been given in
paragraphs no. 2 and 3, which reads as under:
"2. That the delay in filing the present Arbitration Application was
for the reason that the deponent had no knowledge regarding filing
of the Arbitration Application and it was only in the month of May
when the deponent contacted his counsel and prepared the appeal
and went back to arrange the necessary papers for filing the present
appeal however the deponent fell ill and could not come to
Allahabad for filling the present appeal.
3. That after recovery, the deponent came to Allahabad for filing
the present Arbitration Application without any further delay.
therefore the deponent request the Hon'ble Court to condone the
delay in filing the present Arbitration Application and treat the
same to have been filed within time."
5. Apparently, the explanation offered is that the appellant had no
knowledge regarding filing of 'Arbitration Application', i.e. the
arbitration case and that it was only in the month of May when he
contacted his counsel and prepared the appeal and went back to arrange
papers for filing of appeal, but on account of his illness, he could not
come to Allahabad for filing the same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that since
there was no arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the
award itself is illegal and the same having not come to the knowledge of
the appellant, delay occurred in filing the application under Section 34 of
the Act, 1996. As far as delay in filing the present appeal is concerned,
except from reading the afore-quoted paragraphs no. 2 and 3 of the
affidavit, nothing more has been argued.
7. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
8. A perusal of the record indicates that pursuant to a resolution
dated 10.06.2021 passed by the respondent-Co-operative Society,
Arbitration Case No. 3 of 2021 was registered before the sole Arbitrator
Mr. Hari Lal, Advocate. An award was passed on 12.04.2022 which
indicates that despite various notices sent to the appellant by registered
post and despite their service upon him, he did not appear to contest the
3
ARPLD No. - 152 of 2026
proceedings and, consequently, the award was passed directing recovery
for a sum of Rs.7,29,285/- alongwith interest @ 11% per annum. The
findings recorded qua service of notice upon the appellant, his non-
appearance and non-filing of response, are as under:-
"वादी सोसायटी ने विपक्षीगण को बार-बार ऋण मय ब्याज जमा करने के लिये कहा
गया परन्तु विपक्षीगण द्वारा ऋण की राशि मय ब्याज अदा नहीं किया गया। इस
कारण वादी सोसोयटी के प्रस्ताव दिनांक 10-06-2021 के अनुसार सोसायटी की
नियमावली के क्लाज 39 के नियम 11 के अनुसार मुझे आर्बीट्रेटर नोमिनेट किया
गया। उपरोक्त मामला मेरे द्वारा अपने रिकार्ड में पंजीकृ त किया गया जो आर्बीट्रेशन
वाद संख्या 3/2021 है तथा विपक्षी नं० 1 को नोटिस रजिस्टर्ड डाक से दिनांक 19-
07-2021 के लिये भेजा गया जो उसे प्राप्त नही हुआ तथा पुनः नोटिस दिनांक 02-
08-2021, 26-08-2021, 16-09-2021 भेजे गये परन्तु विपक्षी नं० 1 पर तामील
नही हुई तथा पुनः नोटिस रजिस्ट्री डाक व कोरियर द्वारा दिनांक 13-10-2021 के
लिये भेजा गया। दिनांक 13-10-2021 को इस सम्बन्ध में तामील नही है तथा प्रार्थना
पत्र वास्ते संशोधन बनाये जाने जामानतियों को विपक्षीगण दिया गया। प्रार्थना पत्र
संशोधन दिनांक 09-11-2021 को स्वीकार किया गया तथा नये बनाये गये
विपक्षीगणों को नोटिस दिनांक 17-12-2021 के लिये जारी किये गये कि वे अपना
पक्ष स्वयं या अधिवक्ता के माध्यम से मेरे समक्ष रखे। विपक्षीगण 2, 3 व 7 पर
तामील रजिस्ट्री डाक से पर्याप्त है। रजिस्ट्री रसीद की तामील नेट की कापी पत्रावली
पर है तथा विपक्षी नं० 4 पर तामील इन्कारी से पर्याप्त है तथा विपक्षी नं 0 1, 5 व 6
पर तामील नहीं है तथा पुनः नोटिस दिनांक 11-01-2022 के लिये जारी किये गये।
दिनांक 11-01-2022 पर विपक्षी नं० 1, 5 व 6 पर तामील रजिस्ट्री डाक से पर्याप्त
है। वादी द्वारा नेट की कापी दाखिल की गई। तामील होने के बावजूद भी किसी भी
विपक्षीगण ने अपने जवाब / आपत्ति दाखिल नहीं किये और इस सम्बन्ध में कि वे
अपना उत्तर दाखिल करे , अन्तिम अवसर भी दिया गया तथा दिनांक 31-01-2022
को वाद में एक पक्षीय कार्यवाही का आदेश पारित किया गया तथा दिनांक 08-02-
2022 के लिये वाद में एक पक्षीय साक्ष्य हेतु नियत की गई। दिनांक 08-02-2022
को साक्ष्य दाखिल नही किया गया तथा समय की याचना की गई। दिनाक 25-02-
2022 को वादी सोसायटी की ओर से वाद पत्र के समर्थन में वादी सचिव श्री राजेन्द्र
सिह ने अपना साक्ष्य शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसके द्वारा वाद का विस्तार से समर्थन
भी किया गया है तथा विपक्षीगण के द्वारा निष्पादित ऋण के दस्तावेजों को संलग्नक
के रूप में दाखिल किये जों संलग्नक 1 ता 17 है।"
9. Assailing the award dated 12.04.2022, a belated application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was filed by the appellant sometime in
March, 2023. The same was accompanied by an application 7-C under
Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996, wherein the ground for non-arbitrability
of the dispute in absence of an arbitration clause was taken coupled with
a plea of 'no knowledge' of the award prior to 08.12.2022. It is the said
application, which has been rejected by Commercial Court by the order
impugned in this appeal.
4
ARPLD No. - 152 of 2026
10. Since, at the moment, we are only considering the explanation
offered for seeking condonation of delay, we find that the appellant has,
surprisingly, indicated that he had no knowledge of filing of the
'Arbitration Application' itself. The said ground, apparently, is contrary
to the record, inasmuch as, even if the plea raised by the appellant that
copy of the award dated 12.04.2022 was served on him on 08.12.2022, it
is a case where, according to the appellant himself, the award was very
much there and it came to his knowledge on 08.12.2022.
11. In view of the above discussion, we find the explanation offered
for delay ex facie false and misleading and application seeking
condonation of delay has been filed as a mere formality contrary to the
record and taking false pleas, although, in arbitration matters,
considering the scheme of the Act of 1996, the explanation, if any, must
be true, clear and specific and in consonance with the statutory
requirements and not otherwise.
12. We are observing so in view of the fact that even application under
Section 34 of the Act, 1996 cannot be filed beyond 120 days (90+30)
and once the very application under Section 34 filed by the appellant
was rejected as barred by limitation, if the appellant still chose not to file
at least the instant appeal within time and has come up with an
explanation which, ex facie, is untrue, we are of the considered opinion
that the appellant has utterly failed to make out a case for condonation of
delay, for which purpose, even findings recorded by the Commercial
Court as well as learned Arbitrator become of significance.
13. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 stands rejected.
14. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed as barred by
limitation.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
September 07, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…