STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. R.M. SINHA & CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the State Government seeking condonation of delay of 470 days in filing the Arbitration appeal. There has been thus gross delay in filing the appeal which arises out of the judgment of the District Court dated 14.03.2019 passed in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) No.03 of 2014. In order to explain such delay, all that has been stated in this application is that after the said judgment was delivered by the District Court, the advocate concerned was engaged for preferring appeal. However, the papers handed over to him were misplaced and could not be located for long time. The papers could be found only on or around 20.08.2020 after which the process of drafting the appeal and delay of condonation application was undertaken and thereafter the proceedings were presented before the Court.

(2.) We do not find that the applicant has properly explained substantial delay caused in filing the appeal. Mere statement that papers which were handed over to the advocate were lost by him and could be found much later cannot be the grounds for condoning such inordinate delay.

(3.) We further find that the arbitral proceedings were instituted by the contractor who had executed the work for and on behalf of the Government. His claim was for a sum of Rs.2,23,850/-. The arbitrator passed a nil award on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. This judgment the District Court reversed and requested the arbitrator to pass an award on merits. This was on the basis that after the execution of the work was over, the contractor had raised money claims from the Government and there was no response from the Government for considerable period of time before finally the Government rejected the claim refusing to pay any further amount to the contractor. According to the District Judge, such rejection of the claim would be the starting point for limitation. This was in contrast to the view of the arbitrator that the limitation would begin to run from the date the execution of the work was over or the final bill was settled. We are not going into correctness of the view of the District Court since we are not inclined to condone the delay. The reference was only for the purpose of recording the fact that the claim amount involved is not large.