In Re: Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025 1. The present appeal purported to be under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act of 1996') has been preferred along with a delay condonation application supported by affidavit for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal questioning the order of the Commercial Court, Meerut rejecting the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of the award. 2. A chart recapitulating the details of the cases is being quoted hereinunder:- Arbitration Appeal No. Number of Arbitratio n Case Date of Award Amount awarded by the Arbitral Tribunal in INR Date of decision of Section 34 under 1996 Act Date of presentation of appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act Valuation of the Appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996 in INR Period of delay in preferring appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act in days 37 of 2025 156/2022 30.11.2019 4341843/- (with interest) 22.2.2024 20.01.2025 83,32,643.00 257 3. Sri Rajiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for the appellants on the strength of the averments contained in the delay condonation application submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is unintentional, bona fide and due to procedural formalities and since the award itself is illegal, thus, this Court may condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits. 4. We have heard Sri Rajiv Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and perused the material available on record. 5. Record reveals that the Arbitrator had pronounced the award on 30.11.2019, an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was preferred by the appellants, which came to be rejected by the Commercial Court, Meerut on 22.02.2024. As per the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application, a copy of the award dated 22.02.2024 passed in Arbitration Case No. 156 of 2022 (old number ‘2 of 2020’) was received by the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, on 07.03.2024. Thereafter the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, wrote a letter dated 12.03.2024 directing the Assistant Engineer 3 rd , Meerut Region, Ganga Canal Meerut, to submit a narrative along with the brief history of the case for approval from higher authorities regarding filing of an appeal against the judgment and order of the Commercial Court. Thereafter the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, wrote a letter dated 12.03.2024 directing the Assistant Engineer 3 rd , Meerut Region, Ganga Canal Meerut, to submit a narrative along with the brief history of the case for approval from higher authorities regarding filing of an appeal against the judgment and order of the Commercial Court. Assistant Engineer 3 rd , Meerut Region, Ganga Canal Meerut provided papers to the Divisional Office on 08.04.2024, which was received in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant on 15.04.2024. 6. The Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant by letter dated 23.04.2024 requested the Superintendent Engineer that permission be obtained from higher authorities to file the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Commercial Court. The Superintendent Engineer, Region 1 st , Irrigation Works, Meerut vide letter dated 07.05.2024 requested the Chief Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut to forward the papers to the higher authorities for appropriate action. The Chief Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut raised certain objections and thereafter the file/papers were returned vide letter dated 15.05.2024 to the Office of the Superintendent Engineer, Region 1 st , Irrigation Works, Meerut. The Superintendent Engineer, Region 1 st , Irrigation Works, Meerut by letter dated 17.05.2024 returned the file/papers to the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, while making certain objections while directing for removal of the same. After receiving the letter dated 17.05.2024, the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, rectified the objections and sent the entire file/ papers on 17.05.2024 to the Superintendent Engineer, 1 st circle, Irrigation Works, Meerut. On 24.05.2024, the Superintendent Engineer, 1 st circle, Irrigation Works, Meerut forwarded the papers to the Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut with a request to forward the file to the higher authorities to obtain approval. Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut vide letter dated 27.05.2024 addressed to Chief Engineer Level-1 (West), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut requested them to forward the papers to the higher authorities for obtaining approval. 7. Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resource Department, U.P. Meerut vide letter dated 27.05.2024 addressed to Chief Engineer Level-1 (West), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut requested them to forward the papers to the higher authorities for obtaining approval. 7. The Chief Engineer Level-1 (West), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut vide letter dated 31.05.2024 requested the Chief Engineer (Law Coordination Cell), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to forward the papers to the higher authorities. Thereafter, Chief Engineer (Law Coordination Cell), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow returned the file vide letter dated 28.06.2024 with direction to seek legal opinion in the matter from the Chief Standing Counsel of the Hon’ble High Court and the same was received in the office of Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant on 23.07.2024. On 27.07.2024, the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant, directed the Assistant Engineer 3 rd Meerut Region Ganga Canal to obtain legal opinion on the matter from the Chief Standing Counsel of the Hon’ble High Court. 8. The Assistant Engineer 3 rd Meerut Region Ganga Canal thereafter on 23.082024 made a request to the Chief Standing Counsel to provide legal opinion in the said matter. The Chief Standing Counsel vide letter dated 24.08.2024 provided legal opinion that the appellants have remedy to challenge the order of the Commercial Court before this Court. The legal opinion was received in the office of Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant on 29.08.2024. 9. After receiving the legal opinion of the Chief Standing Counsel, of Hon’ble High Court, the same was forwarded on 30.08.2024 to the Superintendent Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut with a request to obtain permission from the State Government for filing of the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. Superintendent Engineer (Ganga) Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut forwarded the file to the Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut for obtaining permission from the higher authorities through letter dated 02.09.2024. Thereafter Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut vide letter dated 05.09.2024 requested the Chief Engineer (Legal Coordination Cell), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Lucknow to forward the file/papers to the higher authorities for approval. Thereafter Chief Engineer (Ganga), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Meerut vide letter dated 05.09.2024 requested the Chief Engineer (Legal Coordination Cell), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Lucknow to forward the file/papers to the higher authorities for approval. The Chief Engineer (Legal Coordination Cell), Irrigation and Water Resources Department, U.P. Lucknow vide letter dated 20.09.2024 forwarded the file/papers to the Under Secretary, Irrigation and Water Resources Section-3/Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow for obtaining permission from higher authorities. 10. On 10.10.2024, Additional Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P. granted permission to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.02.2024 of the Commercial Court. The Government of U.P. vide letter dated 15.10.2024 addressed a letter to the Chief Engineer/Head of Department, Irrigation Water Resources Department, U.P. Lucknow apprising that the State Government has granted permission to file the appeal. On 30.11.2024, the Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant transmitted the entire papers to learned Standing Counsel of Allahabad High Court, which were received on 03.12.2024 with a request to file the appeal against the order of the Commercial Court. 11. Thereafter, Chief Standing Counsel of the Allahabad High Court allotted the matter to the Standing Counsel on 03.12.2024 for dictation/drafting of the appeal. The Standing Counsel of the Allahabad High Court, who was entrusted with the task of dictating/drafting of the appeal raised certain queries regarding delay in filing the appeal and requested for providing a proper explanation regarding condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 12. The Executive Engineer, Meerut Khand, Ganga Canal Meerut, 2 nd appellant provided the explanation for delay supported by the record, which was received by the Standing Counsel on 21.12.2024. The High Court went on vacations from 21.12.2024 to 01.01.2025 and thereafter post-preparation of the appeal, the same have been presented before the Registry of the High Court on 20.01.2025. 13. Perusal of the explanation taken in the delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay in the opinion of the Court is nothing but a usual, stereotype explanation with respect of placing the files from one desk to another in a routine manner for obtaining approvals to file appeal. There is nothing on record to suggest that due diligence was exercised to ensure filing of the appeal within the time provided under the statute. There is nothing on record to suggest that due diligence was exercised to ensure filing of the appeal within the time provided under the statute. It is also not the case of the appellant that they were not aware about the rejection of the applications/objections under Section 34 of the 1996 Act as the appellants were duly represented before the Commercial Court through their counsels. It is thus highly inconceivable that the appellants were not aware about the fact that appeal were to be preferred with due promptness as per the limitation provided under the statute. 14. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Others Vs. Bherulal (2020) 10 SCC 654 had the occasion to consider the issue with regard to filing of appeal without any reasonable cause after stipulated period and went on to observe as under:- “6. We are also of the view that the aforesaid approach is being adopted in what we have categorised earlier as “certificate cases". The object appears to be to obtain a certificate of dismissal from the Supreme Court to put a quietus to the issue and thus, say that nothing could be done because the highest Court has dismissed the appeal. It is to complete this formality and save the skin of officers who may be at default that such a process is followed. We have on earlier occasions also strongly deprecated such a practice and process. There seems to be no improvement. The purpose of coming to this Court is not to obtain such certificates and if the Government suffers losses, it is time when the officer concerned responsible for the same bears the consequences. The irony is that in none of the cases any action is taken against the officers, who sit on the files and do nothing. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straightaway the counsel appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. It is presumed that this Court will condone the delay and even in making submissions, straightaway the counsel appear to address on merits without referring even to the aspect of limitation as happened in this case till we pointed out to the counsel that he must first address us on the question of limitation. 7. We are thus, constrained to send a signal and we propose to do in all matters today, where there are such inordinate delays that the Government or State authorities coming before us must pay for wastage of judicial time which has its own value. Such costs can be recovered from the officers responsible.” 15. The issue with regard to the extent of condonation of delay in filing of the appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act came up before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited , (2021) 6 SCC 460 , wherein following was observed: “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(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 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.” 16. Yet in another decision emanating from the proceedings purported to be under Section 37 of the 1996 Act wherein similar defence was sought to be taken by the State in preferring appeal beyond the statutory period the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Others Vs. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare & Brothers, 2022 SCC Online SC 2151 held as under:- “17. M/s. Satish Chand Shivhare & Brothers, 2022 SCC Online SC 2151 held as under:- “17. The explanation as given in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioners in the High Court does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 337 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The law of limitation binds everybody including the Government. The usual explanation of red tapism, pushing of files and the rigmarole of procedures cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. The Government Departments are under an obligation to exercise due diligence to ensure that their right to initiate legal proceedings is not extinguished by operation of the law of limitation. A different yardstick for condonation of delay cannot be laid down because the government is involved. 21. The questions of law purported to be raised in this Special Leave Petition are misconceived. The right of appeal is a statutory right, subject to the laws of limitation. The law of limitation is valid substantive law, which extinguishes the right to sue, and/or the right to appeal. Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant. 22. When consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards 'sufficient cause' to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. However, in this case, the Petitioners failed to make out a strong prima facie case for appeal. Furthermore, a liberal approach, may adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Liberal approach does not mean that an appeal should be allowed even if the cause for delay shown is glimsy. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning.” 17. This Court in Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Defective No.89 of 2024 , Executive Engineer Drainage Division Vs. The Court should not waive limitation for all practical purposes by condoning inordinate delay caused by a tardy lackadaisical negligent manner of functioning.” 17. This Court in Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Defective No.89 of 2024 , Executive Engineer Drainage Division Vs. M/s Ayush Construction and others , decided on 15.03.2024 had the occasion to consider the similar grounds taken for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act questioning the orders of the Commercial Court rejecting the applications under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, wherein not only the appeals were rejected, but also directions were issued for holding of enquiry with regard to the lapses committed by the erring officers/ employees in causing delay in filing the appeal within the stipulated period. 18. The said judgment came to be challenged in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.29309 of 2024 , Executive Engineer Drainage Division Vs. M/s Ayush Construction before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which also came to be dismissed on 13.12.2024. 19. Apparently, we find that same grounds are being taken for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of 1996 Act in a routine manner, which does not inspire confidence of the Court, thus the delay condonation application filed for condoning the appeal is rejected 20. Normally, while rejecting the delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the Court would have closed the chapter, however, the Court finds that the proceedings have been conducted in reckless manner which is other than bona fide. The explanation set forth in filing time barred appeals as well as in preferring application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act does not inspire confidence as the grounds taken for condonation of delay are thoroughly insufficient. Since the matter involves monetary aspects that too from State Exchequer, thus, promptness and diligence was required not only at the stage of filing of application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of the award but also at the stage of preferring present appeal before this Court. Since the bona fides are lacking which not only needs to be checked but introspection is to be made at the level of the officers and the functionaries of the State Government who are on the helm of the affairs. 21. Since the bona fides are lacking which not only needs to be checked but introspection is to be made at the level of the officers and the functionaries of the State Government who are on the helm of the affairs. 21. Accordingly, Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Irrigation, Uttar Pradesh is directed to conduct an inquiry with regard to the lapses committed by the erring officers/employees who were under responsibility to prosecute the proceedings and consequently to take action strictly in accordance with law. 22. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. 23. A compliance report shall be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court within the same period. 24. Sri Rajeev Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for the appellants shall communicate the order passed today to the concerned. 25. The Registrar General shall also communicate the order to the concerned for its compliance.