D. Gopinathan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan
Altamas Kabir
Judgment Date: 2007-01-15
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; set aside the orders condoning the delay (Sub Judge) and upholding by the High Court; the petition to set aside the arbitral award is not allowed; the arbitral award remains in force.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; the delay-condonation orders and High Court order are set aside; the petition to set aside the award is dismissed; arbitration award stands.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

D. Gopinathan Pillai

Respondents

State of Kerala
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T. L. Viswanatha Iyer
• T. G. Narayanan Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• R. Sathish

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal challenges a Kerala government move to condone an extraordinary 3320-day delay in filing an application under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to set aside an arbitral award. The State's Civil Revision petition was based on the Sub Judge’s order condoning the delay, which the Sub Judge justified on grounds that officers of the State had grossly neglected to file objections for a long time, suggesting the State should not be penalised for their fault. The Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition, effectively upholding the condonation. The appellant contends that the delay, though admitted as 3320 days, cannot be justified absent a reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper explanation for the delay; moreover, if the award is to be challenged, it must be done within the statutory framework. The Supreme Court observes that there is no dispute about the magnitude of the delay, but emphasizes that when a mandatory provision is not complied with, condonation cannot be granted merely on sympathetic grounds. The Court finds both the Sub Judge’s and the High Court’s orders unsatisfactory for failing to provide adequate justification and, by setting aside those orders and allowing the appeal, reaffirmed that procedural timeliness must be strictly observed in arbitration challenges under the Arbitration Act, 1940.

Provisions of Law Cited

Arbitration Act, 1940 - Section 39

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Delay cannot be condoned without assigning a reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason.
When a mandatory provision is not complied with, delay cannot be condoned, even on sympathetic grounds.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the delay in filing the petition to set aside the arbitral award was only 30 days; the alleged inordinate delay of 3320 days has not been adequately explained. The High Court did not assess the merits of the delay petition and dismissed it; the remedy available to the appellant is under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, to challenge the impugned order if the petition to set aside is decided against him. He seeks a proper examination of the delay and, if justified, restoration of the right to challenge the award.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that the delay should be condoned given gross negligence by State officers in not filing objections for a protracted period; thus, penalising the State for its officers’ fault would be inequitable. The Sub Judge’s order condoning 3320 days is said to be unjustified and unsupported by proper reasoning. The State maintains that public administration interests require acknowledging the fault, but not at the cost of circumventing statutory timelines.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A \- ## D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI _v._ STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. JANUARY 15, 2007 ## B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.] _Arbitration Act, 1940:_ c _Application for setting aside award-3320 days delay in filingCondoned by civil court-High Court declining to interfere-Held, delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason-Orders of Civil Court and High Court set aside-Delay/Laches-Delay in filing application for setting aside award_ Respondent-State Government filed an application for condoning 3320 days delay in filing the application for setting aside the award. The civil D court allowed the said application observing that officers of the State Government committed gross negligence in not filing the objection for such a long time but the Government should not be penalized for their fault The High Court dismissed appellant's revision petition. ## E Allowing the appeal, the Court ## HELD: There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the petition for setting aside the award. When a '!landatory provision is not F complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the Sub-Judge and also by the High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given to condone the inordinate delay of3320 days. It is well considered principle G of law that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the courts have miserably failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena of cases. [Para 5] (906-B-CI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 220 of2007. H 904 D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI v. STATE OF KERALA & ANR. [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 905 A **B** **D** **F** G From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in C.R.P. No. 1177/2005. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, T.G. Narayanan Nair, for the Appellant. R. Sathish, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J.** : l. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.R.Sathish, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dt.13.12.2005 in C.R.P.No.1177 of2005. Before the High Court, it was submitted by the appellant herein (D.Gopinathan Pillai) that the delay in filing an application for setting aside the award was only 30 days and there was absolutely no explanation for the inordinate delay of 3320 days in filing the appeal. The High Court without going into the merits of the delay petition has, however, observed that the application to set aside the award is ultimately dismissed then the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved and that if the said petition is ultimately allowed and the arbitral award passed in favour of the appellant is set aside then his remedy is to file an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and that the appellant can challenge the impugned order in that appeal, in case, the petition to set aside the award happened to be decided against the appellant. Reserving the said right to the appellant, the Civil Revision Petition was dismissed by the High Court. E 4. Our attention was also drawn to the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram dt.30.09.2005 in I.A.No.1309/2005 in O.P.(Arb.) 78/1995 which was filed by the State of Kerala against the appellant herein. The court has considered whether the delay of 3320 days in filing the petition to set aside the award can be condoned. We have perused the entire order. However, without assigning any acceptable reason, Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram has condoned the inordinate delay of 3320 days and allowed the I.A. filed by the State of Kerala. While condoning the delay, the learned Sub Judge has also observed that the officers of the State of Kerala has committed gross negligence in not filing **H** [2007] I S.C.R. 906 A B c D ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS the objection for a long period of 3320 days and, therefore, for the fault of the officers, the State should not be penalised. 5. We are unable to countenance the finding rendered by the Sub Judge and aTso the view taken by the High Court. There is no dispute in regard to the delay of 3320 days in filing the petition for setting aside the award. When a mandatory provision is not complied with and when the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay, only on the sympathetic ground. The orders passed by the learned Sub Judge and also by the High Court are far from satisfactory. No reason whatsoever has been given to condone the inordinate delay of 3320 days. It is well"considered principle of law that the delay cannot be condoned without assigning any reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper reason. Both the courts have miserably failed to comply and follow the principle laid down by this Court in catena of cases. We, therefore, have no other option except to set aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge and as affirmed by the High Court. We accordingly set aside both the orders and allow this appeal. No costs. RP. Appeal allowed.