Delay in Commercial Appeals Cannot Be Condoned Routinely; State’s Administrative Lapses No Excuse for Lack of Diligence; 196 Days Delays Not Condoned: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: State of Punjab & Others v. M/s Rohan Rajdeep Tollways Pvt. Ltd. & Others

Date of Judgment: 10 August 2026

Citation: FAO-CARB-12-2024

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Amarjot Bhatti

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that delay beyond the prescribed limitation period in commercial and arbitration appeals is to be condoned as an exception and not as a rule, keeping in view the legislative objective of speedy resolution and finality underlying the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Court refused to condone the delay in the State of Punjab’s appeal, finding that the explanation offered did not demonstrate the requisite diligence or sufficient cause. The State had asserted that the impugned judgment was not uploaded on the District Court website, but the High Court verified that it had in fact been uploaded on 21 April 2023 at 4:33 PM. Despite the judgment having been pronounced on 28 March 2023, the State did not even apply for its certified copy until 16 May 2023 and ultimately filed the appeal only on 22 January 2024.

Relying upon Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that where appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act are governed by Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, delay beyond the stipulated 60-day period should be condoned only exceptionally, particularly where the appellant has acted bona fide and without negligence.

Summary: The State of Punjab and its authorities filed an appeal against a judgment dated 28 March 2023, accompanied by CM-29-FCARB-2024 seeking condonation of what they described as a delay of 196 days.

The State explained that after the judgment was pronounced, its officials kept checking the District Courts, Chandigarh website but the judgment was allegedly not uploaded. According to the State, it therefore applied for a certified copy only on 16 May 2023. The certified copy was prepared on 1 July 2023 and collected on 5 July 2023.

Thereafter, the matter travelled through different levels of the governmental administrative machinery. The proposed appeal was prepared on 22 September 2023 and forwarded through the online portal to the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle, Chandigarh on 26 September 2023. Since that officer had relinquished charge, it was forwarded to the Chief Engineer (South), PWD (B&R), Patiala on 5 October 2023. The Chief Engineer forwarded it to the Government for approval on 18 October 2023.
The matter was returned by the Government on 8 November 2023 with certain suggestions. After incorporating them, the appeal was again sent to the Superintending Engineer’s office on 13 December 2023, and approval to institute the appeal was eventually granted on 16 January 2024.

The respondents opposed condonation. They argued that under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, limitation for an appeal runs from the date of the judgment or order and the appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court must be filed within 60 days. According to them, when limitation was correctly calculated, the delay was almost 240 days after excluding the statutory 60-day period.

A crucial aspect of the High Court’s reasoning was its examination of the State’s explanation concerning non-uploading of the judgment. The Court itself checked the e-Courts website and found that the State’s assertion was factually incorrect. Although the judgment had been pronounced on 28 March 2023, it had been uploaded on 21 April 2023 at 4:33 PM. Yet the State waited until 16 May 2023 to apply for a certified copy. The copy became ready on 1 July 2023 but was collected only on 5 July 2023, and the appeal was eventually filed on 22 January 2024.

The High Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer v. M/s Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 460. The judgment draws a distinction between limitation in beneficial legislation, such as motor accident compensation claims, and limitation governing commercial and arbitration disputes.

The Court emphasised that commercial and arbitration legislation is intended to secure speedy dispute resolution and finality. The limitation periods applicable to such proceedings cannot therefore be approached with the same degree of liberality that may apply under beneficial legislation. The Supreme Court in Borse Brothers had specifically recognised that finality is a fundamental principle underlying arbitration law and that definite time limits are necessary to prevent arbitral disputes from remaining indefinitely unresolved.
The High Court further reiterated that merely demonstrating “sufficient cause” does not confer an automatic right to condonation of delay. Even after sufficient cause is shown, condonation remains discretionary, and the Court is entitled to consider the applicant’s diligence, bona fides, negligence and overall conduct.

Of particular significance for commercial litigation, the Court reproduced the principle from Borse Brothers that delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, as applicable to different categories of Section 37 Arbitration Act appeals, “is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule.” A short delay may be condoned where the litigant has acted bona fide and without negligence, while simultaneously keeping in mind the rights that may have accrued to the opposite party because of the appellant’s inaction, negligence or laches.

The State also relied upon M/s Jaitley Construction Co. v. Union of India and State of Tripura v. Sri Subhash Chandra Datta. The High Court distinguished those decisions, observing that cogent reasons explaining the delay existed in those cases. No comparable justification was available to the State of Punjab in the present matter.

The Court was particularly critical of the State’s conduct. Not only did it fail to apply for a certified copy promptly after pronouncement of the judgment, but the principal assertion made in its condonation application that the judgment had not been uploaded was found to be factually incorrect. The Court characterised the State’s approach as “lacklustre” and found no ground for exercising discretion in its favour.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State’s application for condonation of delay. The Division Bench held that the State’s lacklustre approach, its delay in even applying for a certified copy, and the factually incorrect assertion regarding non-uploading of the judgment did not constitute sufficient justification for condoning the delay.