JUDGMENT : The instant Commercial appeal has been filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for assailing judgment/order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Original Suit No. 23 of 2017 (Misc. Case No. 07 of 2010) by the District Judge-XIV-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Dhanbad by which award dated 11.07.2007 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator has been affirmed/upheld. I.A. No. 6263 of 2021 2. Since, this appeal is barred by limitation, Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6263 of 2021 has been filed, as such it would be apt for this Court to first deal with the delay condoning application. 3. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 275 days in preferring the present Commercial Appeal. 4. The ground for condoning the delay has been taken, as would appear from the delay condoning application, that upon receipt of the order passed in Original Suit No. 23 of 2017 the department immediately acted upon and after taking legal opinion the same was sent to Departmental Head for approval of the same and after getting appropriate approval appellant filed the aforesaid commercial appeal as substantial question of law is involved which needs to be decided by this Court. According to the appellant, the time consumed in getting approval for filing appeal caused delay of 275 days however there was no deliberate fault on the part of the appellant. 5. In addition to the grounds as has been taken in I.A. No. 6263 of 2021, to supplement the ground for condonation of delay, one supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of appellant. 6. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Advocate General, appearing for the appellant pressing the supplementary affidavit has submitted that it has been filed supplementing the cause shown for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. It has been submitted that an award dated 11.07.2007 was passed by the sole arbitrator in Arbitration Proceeding, which led to filing of application being Misc. Case No. 07 of 2010 (O.S. No. 23 of 2017) on 09.10.2007 before learned Sub-Judge-I, Deoghar by the appellant. However, during pendency of the said application it was transferred to learned District Judge XIV-cum-Commercial Court, Dhanbad, wherein the final order was passed on 24.08.2018 dismissing the application preferred by the present appellant. The appellant received the certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2010 (O.S. No. 23 of 2017). However, during pendency of the said application it was transferred to learned District Judge XIV-cum-Commercial Court, Dhanbad, wherein the final order was passed on 24.08.2018 dismissing the application preferred by the present appellant. The appellant received the certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No. 07 of 2010 (O.S. No. 23 of 2017). With a view to prefer appeal against order dated 24.08.2018, the appellant-department opened a filed on 08.09.2018 and accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sikatia forwarded the ‘statement of facts’ to the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Deoghar on 12.09.2018 for its approval to prefer appeal before this Court, who on the same day forwarded it for approval to the Water Resources Department, Ranchi. The concerned authorities of Water Resources Department, Ranchi opened a file on 12.09.2018 and note-sheet with respect to dismissal of Misc. Case No. 7 of 2010 (O.S. No. 23 of 2017) with an objective to receive approval of ‘statement of facts’ from the higher authorities for filing the appeal against order dated 24.08.2018 was drawn and forwarded it to Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi. It has been stated that on the same date i.e. 12.09.2018, the Under Secretary, Water Resources Department, Ranchi forwarded the same to the Chief Engineering (Monitoring) with his own comments in the note-sheet. On 14.09.2018, the Chief Engineer (Monitoring) directed the Special Executive Officer (Law) to look into the matter and take all possible and appropriate steps for filing appeal before this Court. On 18.09.2018, the Special Executive Officer (Law) returned the file to the Chief Engineer (Monitoring) with comments and opinion. On 19.09.2018, the Assistant Engineer (Monitoring) suggested to provide the same file to Special Executive Officer (Law) for preparation of ‘statement of facts’ with necessary correction and amendments. Thereafter, on 05.02.2019, the Special Executive Officer (Law) sent detailed observation and synopsis of the said case and also suggested to send the file before Advocate General for further Opinion. On 12.02.2019, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department sent file to Engineer-in-Chief-I which was thereafter forwarded to the Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand for its comment and approval, who on 13.02.2019 forwarded it to Law Department to send it to learned Advocate General, Jharkhand for its opinion, comment and direction in furtherance of filing an appeal against the order dated 24.08.2018. Thereafter on 18.02.2019, the office of the Advocate General received the aforesaid file. Thereafter on 18.02.2019, the office of the Advocate General received the aforesaid file. The opinion from the office of learned Advocate General Office with respect to filing appeal against order dated 24.08.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 07/2010 (O.S. No. 23/2017) was forwarded to the Law Department on 09.04.2019. On 11.04.2019, the Law Department sent the said file to Water Resource Department, Jharkhand. On 15.04.2019, the ‘statement of facts’ which was prepared earlier was put up before Engineer-in-Chief-I for obtaining direction from the Higher Authority upon final approval. The Engineer-in-Chief-I forwarded said ‘statement of facts’ to Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resource Department, Jharkhand for its final approval on 18.04.2019. The Additional Chief Secretary, Water Resource Department Jharkhand approved the said statement of facts on 22.04.2019. Thereafter, the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Sikatia was authorized on 08.05.2019 to file Commercial Appeal before this Court after meeting concerned Law Officer of Office of the learned Advocate General. Only then the authorized Executive Engineer contacted the Advocate General on 09.07.2019 alongwith approved ‘statement of fact’ with relevant documents for filing appeal and accordingly, on 23.07.2019 an appeal was filed before this Court. Therefore, it is urged that the delay in getting approval of the decision to file appeal and approval of ‘statement of facts’ had caused delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal. 7. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Jharkhand referring to the aforesaid ground has submitted, as has been agitated in the supplementary affidavit, that on merit the appellant has a good case, therefore, instead of going into the technicality on the issue of limitation, matter may be heard on merit and delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. 8. Mr. Arjun Kumar De, learned counsel for the respondents has seriously objected to the submissions made on behalf of appellant-State submitting that whatever ground has been referred in the interlocutory application and supplementary affidavit to I.A. No. 6263 of 2021, that cannot be said to be sufficient ground to condone the delay. He further submits that delay of 275 days which was caused due to movement of file from one table to another or one department to another cannot be said to be sufficient cause to condone delay. 9. He further submits that delay of 275 days which was caused due to movement of file from one table to another or one department to another cannot be said to be sufficient cause to condone delay. 9. In order to buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer) Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited [ (2021) 6 SCC 460 ]. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the reasons causing the delay in preferring the appeal, as has been pleaded in the Interlocutory Application and supplementary affidavit. 11. It is settled position of law that delay can only be condoned if sufficient cause is shown by the party concerned. It requires to refer herein that the object and intent of the enactment of Commercial Court Act is expeditious disposal of appeals as provided under Section 14 of the Commercial Courts Act. 12. This Court, before delving upon the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judgments pronounced by Hon’ble Apex Court dealing with the issue of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. [ (2012) 3 SCC 563 ], at paragraphs 27 to 29, has observed as under: “27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. 28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Likewise in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Chaitram Maywade, [ (2020) 10 SCC 667 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 1 to 5 has held as under: 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh continues to do the same thing again and again and the conduct seems to be incorrigible. The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 588 days. We had an occasion to deal with such inordinately delayed filing of the appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh in State of M.P. v. Bherulal [State of M.P. v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654 ] in terms of our order dated 15-10-2020. 2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. 2. We have penned down a detailed order in that case and we see no purpose in repeating the same reasoning again except to record what are stated to be the facts on which the delay is sought to be condoned. On 5-1-2019, it is stated that the Government Advocate was approached in respect of the judgment delivered on 13-11-2018 [Chaitram Maywade v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine HP 1632] and the Law Department permitted filing of the SLP against the impugned order on 26-5-2020. Thus, the Law Department took almost about 17 months' time to decide whether the SLP had to be filed or not. What greater certificate of incompetence would there be for the Legal Department. 3. We consider it appropriate to direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Madhya Pradesh to look into the aspect of revamping the Legal Department as it appears that the Department is unable to file appeals within any reasonable period of time much less within limitation. These kinds of excuses, as already recorded in the aforesaid order, are no more admissible in view of the judgment in Postmaster General v. Living Media (India) Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 327 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 649. 4. We have also expressed our concern that these kinds of the cases are only “certificate cases” to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue. The object is to save the skin of officers who may be in default. We have also recorded the irony of the situation where no action is taken against the officers who sit on these files and do nothing. 5. Looking to the period of delay and the casual manner in which the application has been worded, the wastage of judicial time involved, we impose costs on the petitioner State of Rs 35,000 to be deposited with the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. The amount be deposited within four weeks. The amount be recovered from the officer(s) responsible for the delay in filing and sitting on the files and certificate of recovery of the said amount be also filed in this Court within the said period of time. We have put to Deputy Advocate General to caution that for any successive matters of this kind the costs will keep on going up.” The Hon’ble Apex Court considering the object and intent of the Commercial Courts Act has delved upon the issue of limitation in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer) Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supra) and after considering the judgment rendered in Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (supra) as also, the judgment rendered in Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Chaitram Maywade (supra) and in Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [ AIR 1962 SC 361 ], has been pleased to hold at paragraph 63 as under: “63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) 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 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.” The Hon’ble Apex Court has come to the conclusive finding taking into consideration the object of speedy disposal which is sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) 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 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. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while laying down such proposition, refused to condone the delay of 131 days so far as it relates to Civil Appeal Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 665 of 2021. Further, the delay of 75 days was refused to be condoned while passing order in S.L.P.(C) No. 15278 of 2020. It further appears that even the delay of 227 days in filing appeal and 200 days in refiling was declined to be condoned in S.L.P.(C) No. 18079 of 2020. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted as hereunder: “64. Coming to the facts of the appeals before us, in the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 665 of 2021, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay, dated 17-12-2020 [State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10453], has found that the Government of Maharashtra had not approached the court bona fide, as follows : [State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10453], has found that the Government of Maharashtra had not approached the court bona fide, as follows : [State of Maharashtra v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 10453], SCC OnLine Bom para 7) “7. I have carefully gone through the papers. There can be no doubt in view of the documentary evidence in the form of copy of the application tendered by the advocate representing the applicant for obtaining a certified copy (Ext. R-1) that in fact, after pronouncement of the judgment and order in the proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, the advocate concerned had applied for certified copy on 14-5-2019. The endorsement further reads that it was to be handed over to Mr A.D. Patil of the Irrigation Department, Dhule, who is a staff from the office of the applicant. The further endorsements also clearly show that the certified copy was ready and was to be delivered on 27-5- 2019. Inspite of such a stand and document, the applicant has not controverted this or has not come up with any other stand touching this aspect. It is therefore apparent that the applicant is not coming to the Court with clean hands even while seeking the discretionary relief of condonation of delay.” 66. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15278 of 2020, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 27-1-2020 [M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. v. Swastik Wires, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies upon Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169 ] and thereby states that the judgment of this Court in [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] would not apply. The judgment of the High Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169 ] was a judgment which applied the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and had nothing to do with the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment of the High Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169 ] was a judgment which applied the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and had nothing to do with the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a direct judgment which applied the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then held that no condonation of delay could take place beyond 120 days. The High Court was bound to follow N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275], as on the date of the judgment of the High Court, N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a judgment of the two learned Judges of the Supreme Court binding upon the High Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. On this score, the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. 67. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27-4-2019, the appeal was filed only on 9-9-2019, the explanation for delay being: “2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 1-4-2013 was received by the appellant on 27-4-2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion. 3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the authorities concerned, the officer-in-charge was appointed vide order dated 23-7-2019. 4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed pursuant to the same and further delay. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy Department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bona fide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.” 68. 5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy Department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bona fide and which deserve[s] to be condoned.” 68. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also. 69. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No. 18079 of 2020, there is a huge delay of 227 days in filing the appeal, and a 200-day delay in refiling. The facts of this case also show that there was no sufficient cause whatsoever to condone such a long delay. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 15-10-2019 [Union of India v. Associated Construction Co., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10797] cannot be faulted on this score and this appeal is consequently dismissed.” 13. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, in order to consider as to whether the explanation/reason furnished by the appellant can be construed to be bona fide so that the delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal can be condoned, we find from the delay condonation application as also the grounds supplemented by way of supplementary affidavit that only movement of file from one table to another table and one department to other has been shown to be the ground for condonation of delay. No other ground could be raised for delay of 275 days. 14. This Court, after taking into consideration the ground referred by Hon’ble Apex Court, while rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay of 130 days, for which the explanation was furnished of file pushing and administrative exigency; further while refusing to condone the delay of 75 days due to the procedural approval and the ground since the appellant is a public entity under the Energy Department of the State Government the delay caused in filing the appeal has been said to be bona fide and as such deserves to be condoned but such explanation, does not find the same as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Even the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal was refused to be condoned while passing order in S.L.P. (C) No. 18079 of 2020. Even the delay of 227 days in filing the appeal was refused to be condoned while passing order in S.L.P. (C) No. 18079 of 2020. This Court, thus, is of the view that in the present case also the reason shown for condonation of delay i.e., the movement of file from one table to another and one department to another in getting approval of the decision to file appeal before this Court causing delay of 275 days, cannot be said to be sufficient ground for condoning the delay. 15. In view thereof, the delay application is fit to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 6263 of 2021 stands dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal also stands dismissed be barred by limitation. 18. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, pending Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 11238 of 2019 also stands dismissed.