D. GOPINATHAN PILLAIversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

A                           D. GOPINATHAN PILLAI                                    \-
                                     v.
                         STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

                                JANUARY 15, 2007

B            [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]

         Arbitration Act, 1940:

          Application for setting aside award-3320 days delay in filing-
    Condoned by civil court-High Court declining to interfere-Held, delay
c   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

          From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.12.2005 of the High Court          A
      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.
                                                                                        B
           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.                                c
             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           D
      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        E
      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.
                                                                                        F
            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            G
      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
    906                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2007] I S.C.R.

A   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
B   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
c   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
D   both the orders and allow this appeal.

          No costs.

    RP.                                                          Appeal allowed.




                                                                                     ';