w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



The Superintending Engineer Highways, Villupuram Circle Villupuram v/s Metro Road Construction (Madras) Pvt Ltd. Anna Nagar West & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- L & W CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2006PTC039095

Company & Directors' Information:- N H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC144604

Company & Directors' Information:- C S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140236

Company & Directors' Information:- S D CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1993PTC058947

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC121828

Company & Directors' Information:- A B T MADRAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50101TZ2002PTC010090

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00500BR1984PTC001953

Company & Directors' Information:- T D CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2002PTC006719

Company & Directors' Information:- M I A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45204DL2013PTC248344

Company & Directors' Information:- H N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200JH2007PTC012923

Company & Directors' Information:- L V CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1998PTC023382

Company & Directors' Information:- A G L CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2008PTC126885

Company & Directors' Information:- C. K. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00501BR1990PTC003909

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTION INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1979PTC003375

Company & Directors' Information:- H R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PTC026867

Company & Directors' Information:- M B N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2004PTC007322

Company & Directors' Information:- V K B S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC035435

Company & Directors' Information:- N J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102WB2012PTC186978

Company & Directors' Information:- C S R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060034

Company & Directors' Information:- J K ROAD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203JK2012PTC003594

Company & Directors' Information:- T M G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203UP2000PTC025597

Company & Directors' Information:- C D S CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1982PTC026703

Company & Directors' Information:- METRO INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL1996PLC306472

Company & Directors' Information:- P J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2000PTC006365

Company & Directors' Information:- A R C CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202MH1996PTC096950

Company & Directors' Information:- N B S A M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC143267

Company & Directors' Information:- J M D CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1993PTC057456

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR1998PTC008483

Company & Directors' Information:- V & C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049012

Company & Directors' Information:- S B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203OR1994PTC003672

Company & Directors' Information:- O A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203AR2005PTC007930

Company & Directors' Information:- J C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203AS1999PTC005975

Company & Directors' Information:- N A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2009PTC192764

Company & Directors' Information:- N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC146888

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U45102WB1991PTC050570

Company & Directors' Information:- M M CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200GJ1995PTC027508

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC171110

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2001PTC028456

Company & Directors' Information:- C R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1960PTC024811

Company & Directors' Information:- J S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201OR1981PTC000921

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202DL1996PTC076831

Company & Directors' Information:- METRO INDIA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U27100DL1985PLC022417

Company & Directors' Information:- S N S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45204HR2009PTC039160

Company & Directors' Information:- A V M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202GJ2007PTC050521

Company & Directors' Information:- M P J CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400HR2011PTC044433

Company & Directors' Information:- A H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1990PTC019675

Company & Directors' Information:- HIGHWAYS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203AS1965PTC001240

Company & Directors' Information:- A R S S V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202UR2020PTC011198

Company & Directors' Information:- A D CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1984PTC006464

Company & Directors' Information:- G V G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2009PTC072766

Company & Directors' Information:- METRO ROAD CONSTRUCTION (MADRAS) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63031TN1993PTC025051

Company & Directors' Information:- D G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102JH2012PTC000717

Company & Directors' Information:- N. B. Y. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201HR2019PTC079172

Company & Directors' Information:- J B F CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200JK2008PTC002952

Company & Directors' Information:- K R P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1989PTC053580

Company & Directors' Information:- R S M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC142245

Company & Directors' Information:- R & S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201BR2012PTC018727

Company & Directors' Information:- B M S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2006PTC110196

Company & Directors' Information:- E H CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1984PTC037174

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45500CT2020PTC010948

Company & Directors' Information:- A C K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203PN2002PTC017065

Company & Directors' Information:- D. M. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2000PTC091230

Company & Directors' Information:- B M CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC043414

Company & Directors' Information:- S K L CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2012PTC016144

Company & Directors' Information:- P D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2007PTC171650

Company & Directors' Information:- A M CONSTRUCTION P LTD. [Active] CIN = U99999WB1990PTC050255

Company & Directors' Information:- P B S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201WB2004PTC099367

Company & Directors' Information:- J B M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209WB2008PTC124938

Company & Directors' Information:- S. Z. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC163934

Company & Directors' Information:- P K S CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HP2004PTC027694

Company & Directors' Information:- H D G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032183

Company & Directors' Information:- S R B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130817

Company & Directors' Information:- N T C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL2001PTC014853

Company & Directors' Information:- S. P. CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB2019PTC233077

Company & Directors' Information:- S A M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2020PTC088988

Company & Directors' Information:- C S CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2020PTC346811

Company & Directors' Information:- G B CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210PB1995PTC016038

Company & Directors' Information:- A K CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45400WB1983PTC035682

Company & Directors' Information:- D. D. A. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201JH2008PTC013043

Company & Directors' Information:- K. G. G. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MN2010PTC008256

Company & Directors' Information:- G N B B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2004PTC007418

Company & Directors' Information:- H. N. D. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200JH2011PTC015162

Company & Directors' Information:- M E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2007PTC171643

Company & Directors' Information:- C S COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL1997PLC011174

Company & Directors' Information:- L K I CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1993PTC058304

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1994PTC065714

Company & Directors' Information:- D T M CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1978PTC031730

Company & Directors' Information:- D L CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1982PTC035570

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC055629

Company & Directors' Information:- M N P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1980PTC022351

Company & Directors' Information:- A H A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2010PTC040773

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60109WB1996PTC081825

Company & Directors' Information:- J J CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200WB1989PTC046714

Company & Directors' Information:- D P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042320

Company & Directors' Information:- B B G CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1993PTC059618

Company & Directors' Information:- G S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1994PTC063238

Company & Directors' Information:- P S S S K CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB2006PTC107993

Company & Directors' Information:- S E CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044630

Company & Directors' Information:- H K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1981PTC004160

Company & Directors' Information:- A V CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202PB1982PTC004971

Company & Directors' Information:- G N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202OR2000PTC006244

Company & Directors' Information:- D P T CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202MH2001PTC131559

Company & Directors' Information:- J CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TZ2012PTC018250

Company & Directors' Information:- N B S D CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1993PTC058364

Company & Directors' Information:- S K E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH2012PTC000666

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC134347

Company & Directors' Information:- L J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142321

Company & Directors' Information:- R H P CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203MP2001PTC014739

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND M CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202UP1994PTC017286

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AS1990PTC003431

Company & Directors' Information:- J K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1987PTC001858

Company & Directors' Information:- B T CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1997PTC085448

Company & Directors' Information:- P V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL1998PTC097116

Company & Directors' Information:- M T CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26933OR1985PTC001496

Company & Directors' Information:- A K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UR1982PTC005795

Company & Directors' Information:- D P S MADRAS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210TN1986PTC012702

Company & Directors' Information:- P B CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01131TN1995PLC032650

Company & Directors' Information:- S K P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CT2008PTC020585

Company & Directors' Information:- A P G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC168160

Company & Directors' Information:- B. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U00894BR1989PTC003616

Company & Directors' Information:- Y S K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC134417

Company & Directors' Information:- P K A S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC138117

Company & Directors' Information:- R G M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200BR1992PTC004863

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1987PTC029674

Company & Directors' Information:- O S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00351JH1990PTC003764

Company & Directors' Information:- D I CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061454

Company & Directors' Information:- P N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122894

Company & Directors' Information:- A + E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC042290

Company & Directors' Information:- S N CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45203OR1983PTC001211

Company & Directors' Information:- C V & CO (MADRAS) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999TN1972PTC006161

Company & Directors' Information:- P N R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH2006PTC158802

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. D. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PB2009PTC033102

Company & Directors' Information:- B H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2009PTC193976

Company & Directors' Information:- K L G CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2015PTC264933

Company & Directors' Information:- J W CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC198916

Company & Directors' Information:- U N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400PN2014PTC150730

Company & Directors' Information:- G T K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1996PTC096261

Company & Directors' Information:- J B CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC025668

Company & Directors' Information:- U S CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC149583

Company & Directors' Information:- NAGAR CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2013PTC148356

Company & Directors' Information:- R M J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102UP2010PTC040949

Company & Directors' Information:- M V CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1967PTC011413

Company & Directors' Information:- A P L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209HP2010PTC031395

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200HP2014PTC000633

Company & Directors' Information:- I. A. A. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2011PTC220447

Company & Directors' Information:- R M D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC185164

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC185770

Company & Directors' Information:- NAGAR CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2012PTC232229

Company & Directors' Information:- G-5 CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC265907

Company & Directors' Information:- U P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC271791

Company & Directors' Information:- V 2 S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC273750

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC288656

Company & Directors' Information:- I G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC077365

Company & Directors' Information:- P P S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC138608

Company & Directors' Information:- S S N V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC142918

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC231726

Company & Directors' Information:- N R D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC244905

Company & Directors' Information:- S A Z CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102DL2014PTC267130

Company & Directors' Information:- A & Z CONSTRUCTION CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL2012PTC231712

Company & Directors' Information:- J M M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR2014PTC021845

Company & Directors' Information:- B & U CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203GJ2013PTC075424

Company & Directors' Information:- U. A. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201HR2020PTC086153

Company & Directors' Information:- C P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1988PTC043759

Company & Directors' Information:- K P CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1985PTC039394

Company & Directors' Information:- T K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1985PTC039731

Company & Directors' Information:- A P S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201BR1986PTC002374

Company & Directors' Information:- A B G S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1986PTC040667

Company & Directors' Information:- G B S S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201PN2000PTC015546

Company & Directors' Information:- WEST INDIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH1995PTC088250

Company & Directors' Information:- B P CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U95201WB1955PTC022488

Company & Directors' Information:- A R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1988PTC008459

Company & Directors' Information:- A S G CONSTRUCTION CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL1996PTC075278

Company & Directors' Information:- METRO CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1972PTC015991

Company & Directors' Information:- W & C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PN2006PTC129169

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC164939

Company & Directors' Information:- S R S S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC176504

Company & Directors' Information:- B C R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1979PTC021005

Company & Directors' Information:- THE CONSTRUCTION CO OF INDIA LTD. [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1943PLC007425

Company & Directors' Information:- S B CONSTRUCTION CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45208WB1947PLC014904

    O.S.A.SR.No. 143292 of 2019 & C.M.P.No. 886 of 2020

    Decided On, 11 November 2020

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

    For the Petitioner: S.R. Rajagopal, Additional Advocate General assisted by Y.T. Aravind Goshi, Additional Government Pleader (CS). For the Respondents: R1, P.J. Rishikesh, Advocate, R2, Arbitrator.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.886 of 2020 in O.S.A.S.R.No.143292 of 2019 filed and Judge-s Summons issued under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules of this Court, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the said O.S.A.S.R.No.143292 of 2019.O.S.A.SR.No.143292 of 2019 filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order and decretal order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 12.07.2018 made in O.P.No.2 of 2011 on the file of this Court.)(Common Judgment: R. Subbiah, J.)C.M.P.No.886 of 2020 in O.S.A.S.R.No.143292 of 2019 is filed to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the above Original Side Appeal (O.S.A.SR) as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.2 of 2011, confirming the Arbitral Award of the learned Arbitrator, dated 24.12.2008.2. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, certain facts are necessary to be examined and they are stated hereunder.3. The Superintending Engineer, Highways, Villupuram Circle, Villupuram (for short, ‘the Department), by letter of acceptance dated 04.06.1997, had awarded a contract in favour of the first respondent-Metro Road Construction (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as -the construction company-)-. The said contract pertains to permanent restoration of the flood affected Cuddalore - Chittor Road from Km 52/0 to Km 84/8 at a distance of 32.8 kilometer for a total contract value of Rs.3,85,00,000/-. Subsequently, an agreement dated 08.08.1997 was entered into between the appellant and the first respondent. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the entire work was to be completed within 9 months from the date of execution of the agreement. There are also other conditions relating to the consequences of the abandonment of the contractual work, failure to commence the work etc., which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) filed to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the O.S.A.4. In effect, the first respondent/Construction Company, could not complete the contractual work in time and there was a delay. The contract was ultimately completed only after 33 months from the date of awarding the contract. According to the first respondent/Construction Company, the appellant is wholly attributable for the delay in completing the contract due to various reasons. Therefore, invoking Clause No.53 of the said agreement, which relates to resolution of disputes and settlement of claims by arbitration, the first respondent/Construction Company filed Original Petition No.141 of 2002 before this Court under Section 11 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), for appointment of an arbitrator. In the said Original Petition filed by the first respondent/Construction Company, there was no representation for the appellant/Department. Therefore, on 30.06.2005, this Court passed an ex-parte order appointing the second respondent herein as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute, besides permitting the appellant/Department to raise all the objections as to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, a claim petition was filed by the first respondent/Construction Company claiming a sum of Rs.1,44,24,154/- from the appellant.5. Before the second respondent/learned Arbitrator, the appellant/Department had raised a preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the claim petition, by contending that Clause 53 of the agreement can be invoked only if the dispute is less than Rs.2 lakhs. When the first respondent/Construction Company claims a sum of Rs.1,44,24,154/-, they have to work out their remedy only before the competent Civil Court. The appellant/Department also raised various other contentions before the second respondent/learned Arbitrator. After hearing the rival submissions and the documentary evidence, the second respondent/learned arbitrator passed Award dated 24.12.2008 directing the appellant/Department to pay the first respondent various amounts as set out in Paragraph No.77 of the Arbitral Award.6. Challenging the Award dated 24.12.2008 of the learned Arbitrator, the appellant/Department has filed Original Petition No.2 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said O.P (Original Petition) on 12.07.2018 and confirmed the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant/Department has come forward with this Original Side Appeal (OSA) and since there was a delay of 452 days in filing the said OSA, the present C.M.P. is filed to condone the said delay.7. In the affidavit filed in support of the present CMP, it is stated that the certified copy of the order dated 12.07.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, was received by the appellant/Department on 21.08.2018, and thereafter, necessary steps were taken for filing the appeal. In this regard, instructions were also obtained from the Superintending Engineer of the appellant/Department, as also from the Chief Engineer, whom have sought for a detailed report regarding the project in question, during November 2018 for further course of action in the matter, in order to arrive at a suitable decision to file the appeal. Since the project which is the subject matter of the present OSA, pertains to permanent restoration of the flood affected Cuddalore-Chittor Road executed by the erstwhile Villupuram Highways Construction and Maintenance Division, several sincere attempts were made to diligently trace out the old records/documents, in order to furnish a detailed report to the Chief Engineer. As directed by the Chief Engineer, a detailed report regarding the project was submitted. In the above process, considerable delay had occurred. Further, according to the appellant/Department, as the dispute relating to the appeal pertains to several years of litigation with huge financial implication for the State, the appellant/Department also sought instructions from various authorities up to the level of Additional Secretary to Government, Highways and Maintenance Department, Chennai. Ultimately, on 10.09.2019, the Additional Secretary to the Government directed the appellant/Department to obtain opinion from the Additional Advocate General of the State. Accordingly, opinion was also obtained on 01.11.2019. According to the appellant, due to administrative reasons, the delay of 452 days had occurred in filing the present appeal. It is stated that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to the delay in obtaining opinion from various authorities of the appellant/Department for filing the appeal. In such view of the matter, the instant petition has been filed to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the present OSA.8. The first respondent/Construction Company had filed counter affidavit, mainly contending that the present CMP filed to condone the delay itself is not maintainable, in view of the two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Union of India Vs. Varindera Constructions Limited, reported in 2002 (2) SCC 111 and N.V.International Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2020 (3) CTC 510 (SC)= 2020 (2) SCC 109. As per the dictum laid down in the above said judgments of the Supreme Court, an application under Section 34 of the Act, has to be made within a maximum period of 120 days, with grace period of 30 days thereafter, and an appeal filed under the same proceedings under Section 37 of the Act, has also to be filed within the said period of 120 days and not thereafter. Hence, the present CMP filed to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the present OSA, had to be dismissed. Apart from the above legal grounds, the first respondent-Construction Company also stated in the counter affidavit that no sufficient cause had been made out by the appellant/Department to condone the said delay of 452 days. Thus, the first respondent-Construction Company prayed for dismissal of the present CMP.9. Since the first respondent-Construction Company had raised the question of maintainability of the present OSA itself, on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, by relying upon the above decision of the Supreme Court, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/Department, at the outset, made his submissions with regard to the question of maintainability.10. Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant/Department contended that the learned Single Judge did not consider that the claim petition itself is not maintainable before the second respondent-Arbitrator, inasmuch as the claim made by the first respondent/Construction Company exceeds Rs.2 lakhs. As per Clause 53 of the agreement, if the claim amount exceeds Rs.2 lakhs, then such dispute has to be resolved by the claimant by approaching the Civil Court and the second respondent/Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The learned Single Judge also did not consider that the learned Arbitrator/second respondent had interpreted Clause 53 of the agreement to the effect that the reference to Civil Court indicated in Clause 53 would mean the claimant can approach the Court for appointment of an arbitrator. On the contrary, Clause 53 of the agreement specifically says that if the claim exceeds Rs.2 lakhs, the same shall be referred to the Civil Court having jurisdiction, for a decision, meaning thereby, it was the Civil Court which is competent to adjudicate the dispute. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the learned Single Judge did not consider the fact that delay in concluding the contract is solely attributable on the part of the first respondent/claimant and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the award passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator.11. It is the specific contention of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-Department that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act stipulates that an Arbitral Award has to be challenged within three months of receipt of the Award, with a grace period of one month, which may be condoned by the Court, only if sufficient cause is shown for the delay. Therefore, while questioning the Award passed by the Arbitrator invoking Section 34 of the Act, the provisions contained under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable. On the other hand, Section 37 of the Act provides for preferring an appeal against an order passed under Section 34 of the Act and such remedy is provided under Section 37, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force. Similarly, under Clause 15 of The Letters Patent, an intra-court appeal is provided against an order passed by the Single Judge before the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, the provisions contained under Section 37 of The Act did not specifically exclude the applicability of Section 5 of The Limitation Act and consequently, the delay exceeding a period of 150 days, i.e. 120 days plus 30 days grace period, in filing an appeal under Section 37 of The Act, can be condoned, as contemplated under Section 5 of The Limitation Act, without reference to Section 34 (3) of The Act.12. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the Judgment dated 14.07.2017 passed in O.S.A. No. 113 of 2017 in the case of Raj Television Network Ltd., vs. Thaicom Public Company Limited, reported in 2017 (6) CTC 143 = 2017 (3) LW 833 = MANU/TN/2117/2017. In that judgment, it was held that Section 37 of the Act does not stipulate a period of limitation for making an appeal. The first respondent-Construction Company had raised the question of maintainability of the present appeal, by referring to the decision in the case of N.V.International Vs. State of Assam (cited supra). It is no doubt true that in view of the said judgment of N.V.International case, the Supreme Court refused even to condone the delay of 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in re-filing the appeal and that judgment in N.V.International will apply on to the facts and circumstances of that case. Further, by pointing out the aforesaid decision (N.V.International), the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the statute does not restrict the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. It is his contention that a plain reading of the provisions, makes it clear that there is no restriction on the period of limitation and the same cannot be interpreted to oust a litigant from prosecuting an appeal.13. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the words of a statute must be understood in their natural and ordinary sense and construed, according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity. To reiterate this contention, the learned Additional Advocate General relied on the decision rendered in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur, reported in 1989 (1) SCC 101 and also the decision rendered in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia, reported in 2015 (10) SCC 161, wherein, it was held that the words of a statute are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the object of the enactment as intended by the Legislators.14. By referring to the above decisions of the Supreme Court, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the statute does not restrict the period for preferring an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act. Thus, it is his contention that words of a statute, have to be understood in their ordinary sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning, unless such construction leads to some absurdity. For this purpose, the learned Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur (cited supra) as well as the decision in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia, reported in 2015 (10) SCC 161.15. The learned Additional Advocate General proceeded to contend that the Supreme Court, in the decision rendered in N.V.International Vs. State of Assam (cited supra), had held that the statute prescribed a period of 120 days for condonation of delay, with 30 days grace period, as has been contemplated under Section 34(3) of the Act, but it was not specifically held in Section 37 of the Act that the delay beyond such period, cannot be condoned by this Court. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, a mere direction or observation of the Supreme Court, cannot be taken as a precedent. If only where the Supreme Court lays down a principle of law, only then, it will amount to a precedent. In order to buttress this submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jeet S.Bisht, reported in 2007 (6) SCC 586, wherein it was held as follows:-“A decision passes sub silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind. The Court may consciously decide in favour of one party because of point A, which it considers and pronounces upon. It may be shown, however, that logically the Court should not have decided in favour of the particular party unless it also decided Point B in his favour, but Point B was not argued or considered by the court. In such circumstances, although point B was logically involved in the facts and although the case had a specific outcome, the decision is not an authority on point B. Point B is said to be sub silentio.“16. By pointing out the above decision (Jeet S.Bishit case), the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that, in the absence of any expressed limitation under Section 37 of the Act, restricting the period of limitation or making provisions of the Limitation Act inapplicable, and particularly when the Letters Patent provided for an appeal to be preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, a petition for condonation of delay can be maintained. It is also stated that the Supreme Court, in the decision reported in N.V.International Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2020 (2) SCC 109 (cited supra), does not hold that an appeal beyond the period of 120 days under Section 37 of the Act, cannot be entertained, or the delay should not be condoned. Even though the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Union of India Vs. Varindera Constructions Limited, reported in 2020 (2) SCC 111 (cited supra), holds that the delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, cannot be condoned, in that decision, the Supreme Court does not lay down the law and the observations made in that judgment will not be cited as precedent. Thus, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, there is no specific observation or finding in the decision of the Supreme Court mentioned above (Varindra Constructions Limited case) that the delay of more than 150 days, i.e. 120 days and 30 days grace period, cannot be condoned by the Court. What has to be seen is the reasons assigned for condonation of delay and not the length of delay.17. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the delay in filing the appeal had occasioned due to administrative process, especially, when the outcome of the appeal will have a bearing on the huge financial burden to be shouldered by the State Exchequer. Therefore, after undergoing various process of approval, the appeal has been filed with a delay beyond 150 days. It is his contention that such delay can be condoned, if the explanation offered by the appellant-Department, is reasonable and the appellant-Department cannot be ousted from pursuing the appeal on technicalities.18. In the above context, the learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that merely because the Government has come on appeal, they are not entitled for any special treatment, at the same time, without adopting any technicalities, the explanation offered by the appellant-Department for condonation of the delay, needs to be examined. In the present case, the reasons assigned by the appellant for condonation of delay is a plausible explanation and therefore, the delay has to be condoned and an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to contest the above appeal on merits.19. On the other hand, Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Construction Company contended that the issue as regards the maintainability of the claim petition, was raised by the appellant-Department before the second respondent/learned Arbitrator and it was rejected by holding that Clause 53 of the agreement, will not be a bar for the first respondent herein to file the claim petition. The second respondent/learned Arbitrator considered the claims made by the first respondent/claimant/Construction Company “in-extenso“ and passed an Award. The appellant-Department also unsuccessfully assailed the award passed by the learned Single Judge and suffered an order of dismissal dated 12.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the instant Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP) with a delay of 452 days in filing the Original Side Appeal (OSA). According to the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Construction Company, the delay is inordinate and unexplained, besides, it is beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. While so, such a delay beyond 150 days cannot be condoned by this Court, as it will be contrary to the expressed provision contained under the Act.20. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-Construction Company only contended that the issue involved in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is no longer “res-integra“, as even according to the decisions cited by the learned Additional Advocate General in the case of Varindera constructions and N.V. International (both cited supra), it was specifically held that an appeal under Section 37 of the Act is a continuation of the original proceeding under Section 34 of the Act and therefore, the maximum outer time limit for filing such an appeal is 150 days, i.e. 120 days + 30 days grace period. Section 34(3) of the Act provides 150 days for filing a Petition assailing the order passed by the learned Arbitrator and the same will apply for filing an appeal there-against. The present Original Side Appeal has been filed with a delay of 452 days and it is beyond the period prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Petition has to be summarily dismissed. Above all, the reasons assigned by the appellant for condonation of such inordinate delay is not satisfactory and convincing. The appellant cited the procedural administrative delay and even that was not properly explained with the relevant dates. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent that the delay in filing the appeal is not only inordinate, but the reasons assigned thereof are not convincing and satisfactory. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Construction Company prayed for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Petition.21. The learned counsel for the first respondent/Construction Company also submitted that the argument of the learned Additional Advocate General that in the case of N.V.International, the Supreme Court has not observed that the period beyond 150 days cannot be condoned by the Courts and therefore, Section 5 of The Limitation Act will apply to this case, cannot be countenanced. The Judgments relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General in the aforesaid decisions clearly and categorically indicate that the delay in filing the appeal under Section 37 of The Act, was the only question decided by the Supreme Court. Further, it was specifically observed that any delay beyond the period of 150 days, i.e. 120 days + 30 days grace period, cannot be condoned by the Court. While so, it is futile on the part of the learned Additional Advocate General to contend that the decisions of the Supreme Court mentioned supra, had not laid down any “law“ and therefore, they cannot be taken as a binding precedent. On the contrary, the delay in preferring an appeal under Section 37 of The Act was the only question decided by the Supreme Court in the cases of Varindera constructions and N.V. International (cited supra). The observations made in the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, cannot be construed as an “obiter“ nor “Sub-Silentio“. Therefore, it is contended that Section 37 of The Act alone will apply to the facts of the present case and the provisions contained under Section 5 of The Limitation Act will not come to the aid of the appellant in this case in any manner. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent prayed for dismissal of the Petition for condonation of delay of 452 days in filing the Original Side Appeal as devoid of merits.22. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully gone through the material records placed before us.23. The appellant and the first respondent had entered into an agreement dated 08.08.1997, which contains certain clauses. There was a dispute with respect to such contract entered into between the appellant and the first respondent, which culminated in passing the Award, dated 24.12.2008 passed by the second respondent/Arbitrator. The appellant-Department challenged the said Award before the learned Single Judge by filing O.P.No.2 of 2011 and it was dismissed on 12.07.2018. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2018, the appellant-Department has filed the aforesaid O.S.A.SR.No.143292 of 2019. The appellant has also filed the instant petition in C.M.P.No.886 of 2020 to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the Original Side Appeal. In this background, it is not necessary for us to delve into the contractual dispute “inter se“ between the appellant-Department and the first respondent-Construction Company, or the correctness or otherwise of the said Award passed by the second respondent/learned Arbitrator, as also the learned Single Judge. What is required to be dealt with is whether the reasons assigned by the appellant for condoning the delay of 452 days in filing the Original Appeal, is justifiable. If so, whether the delay can be condoned.24. It is mainly contended by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-Department that the present Original Side Appeal had been filed under Section 37 of The Act, against the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Original Petition No.2 of 2011, filed under Section 34(3) of The Act. It is admitted that the time limit prescribed under Section 34(3) of The Act to file the Original Petition is 120 days plus grace time of 30 days. But, merely because the instant petition has been filed by the appellant-Department to condone the delay of 452 days, it cannot be said that the present petition has been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 37 of The Act, especially, when Section 37 of The Act does not prescribe any such time limit for filing an appeal. On the other hand, the delay can be condoned by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 5 of The Limitation Act. In effect, it is the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant that the present appeal preferred under Section 37 of The Act will not render the provisions contained under Section 5 of The Limitation Act inapplicable, and therefore, the delay has to be condoned by only considering the reasons assigned for condonation of delay.25. Before proceeding further as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of The Limitation Act can be made applicable in an appeal filed under Section 37 of The Act, we are inclined to consider the reasons assigned by the appellant-Department for condonation of delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the Petition for condonation of delay, it is stated that the certified copy of the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge was received on 21.08.2018 and thereafter, instructions have been obtained from various authorities in the appellant/Department and the present CMP had been filed to condone the delay of 452 days only on 14.11.2019. It is also stated that as the dispute involved in the present Petition will have a huge financial bearing on the State Exchequer, the appellant was constrained to comply with various procedural formalities. If that be so, we are of the view that the appellant ought to have complied with those formalities within a reasonable time. On the other hand, we only find that the appellant/Department did not swiftly proceed with the seriousness it deserves. In other words, the usual and conventional reasons assigned by the appellant/Department for condoning an inordinate delay of 452 days is not convincing. When it is the case of the appellant that the outcome of this appeal will have a huge financial burden on the State Exchequer, the appellant-Department ought to have complied with the formalities leading to the filing of the appeal within the period prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the reasons assigned for condonation of the delay in filing the present OSA, are far from satisfactory. In this direction, it would be appropriate to refer a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and others Vs. Living Media India Limited and another, reported in 2012 (3) SCC 563, wherein it was only observed that the persons familiar with the nuances of Law, are very much available in the Departments of the Government and therefore, they must be fully aware of the period of limitation and the legal consequences that may flow in the event of preferring an appeal before the Courts belatedly. While so, it was held that steps have to be taken expeditiously to avert the filing of appeal with delay with a degree of commitment and involvement. This decision of the Supreme Court will only lend support to our conclusion that the reasons assigned by the appellant-Department, are far from satisfactory and on that ground alone, the appellant-Department is not entitled for condonation of delay.26. The next paramount submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-Department is that the present appeal is filed under Section 37 of The Act, wherein there was no time limit prescribed, and therefore, the appellant-Department is entitled to get the delay condoned in filing the appeal as contemplated under Section 5 of The Limitation Act. We are unable to accede to this submission of the learned Additional Advocate General. Admittedly, the appeal filed under Section 37 of The Act is against an order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Original Petition filed under Section 34(3) of The Act. Section 34(3) of The Act clearly stipulates that an appeal against an order passed by the Arbitrator can be filed within 120 days with a grace period of 30 days. In other words, an Original Petition under Section 34 can be filed against an Award passed by the learned Arbitrator within 150 days of receipt of the copy of the award. The same analogy or time limit prescribed under Section 34 of The Act can equally apply

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

to an appeal preferred under Section 37 of The Act against an order passed under Section 34 of The Act, in view of the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Varindera Constructions and N.V.International (both cited supra).27. Useful reference can be quoted from the said decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Varindera Constructions Limited, reported in 2020 (2) SCC 111 (cited supra), which reads as follows:-“Ordinarily, we would have applied the said judgment to this case as well. However, we find that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 10.04.2013 has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India on the ground of delay. The delay was found to be 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal. One of the important points made by the Division Bench is that, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause made out in the grounds of delay, since a Section 34 application has to be filed within a maximum period of 120 days including the grace period of 30 days, an appeal filed from the self-same proceeding under Section 37 should be covered by the same drill.Given the fact that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, as has been held in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others vs. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri and Others, AIR 1941 Federal Court 5, and repeatedly followed by our judgments, we feel that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.In this view of the matter, since even the original appeal was filed with a delay period of 142 days, we are not inclined to entertain these Special Leave Petitions on the facts of this particular case.The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.“28. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is explicit that an appeal under Section 37 of The Act cannot be entertained, if it is filed beyond the period of 120 days. It is also clear from the above decision that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, meaning thereby, an appeal filed under Section 37 of The Act is a continuation of the original proceeding under Section 34 of The Act.29. Therefore, extending such period would result in defeating the very object and purpose with which the provisions of The Act have been enacted. Furthermore, one of the objects with which The Act has been enacted is to ensure speedy and quick resolution of disputes through Arbitration and any delay in resolution of such dispute, finally, would defeat the very object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which provides for speedy disposal of the case. Therefore also, we are of the view that the inordinate delay of 452 days in filing the present Original Side Appeal cannot be countenanced.30. In the light of the above discussion, we decline to condone the delay of 452 days in filing the Original Side Appeal. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Resultantly, O.S.A.SR.No.143292 of 2019 is hereby rejected. No costs.
O R