SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Gopinathan Pillai
Vs
State of Kerala & Anr.
C.A.No.220 of 2007
SLP.(Civil)No.8077/2006
(Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan and Altamas Kabir,JJ.)
15.01.2007
JUDGMENT
Dr.Ar.Lakshmanan, J.
1. 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 of 2005. 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.
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 the objection for a long period of
3320 days and, therefore, for the fault of the officers, the State should not
be penalized.
5. We are unable to countenance the finding rendered by the Sub Judge and also
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 filed 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.
6. No costs.