Inordinate delay without sufficient cause or diligent prosecution warrants dismissal regardless of litigant’s status.

The Appellant (NHAI) filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to challenge an award. This application was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur, on 07.03.2018 because the Appellant failed to deposit deficit court fees despite being given a final opportunity.

The Appellant subsequently filed the present Arbitration Appeal on 20.10.2020 with a delay of 649 days.

Notably, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 6727/2022) was not filed until 24.06.2022—more than four years after the original dismissal and nearly two years after filing the appeal.

The Appellant blamed the delay on the previous counsel’s failure to intimate the status of the case.

1. Whether the Appellant showed "sufficient cause" to condone the inordinate delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent delay in filing the condonation application.

2. Whether the lack of diligence and contradictory pleadings by a State authority can justify the exercise of judicial discretion under the Limitation Act.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the showing of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay.

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (SLP (C) Diary No. 48636/2024), which held that delay caused by the callous attitude of State officials must not be excused as a matter of generosity and that responsibility must be fixed for revenue losses.

Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, establishing that negligence, lack of bona fides, or inaction precludes the condonation of delay, as doing otherwise would disregard statutory provisions.

Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy, emphasizing that rules of limitation apply equally to private parties and the State to prevent the "Sword of Damocles" from hanging over respondents indefinitely.

The Court observed that the appeal was legally non-existent until the delay was condoned, effectively making the filing date 2022 when the condonation application was finally submitted.

The Court found the Appellant's explanation—that the counsel failed to inform them—to be self-contradictory, as the Appellant simultaneously claimed the counsel did intimate the office when knowledge was eventually gathered.

Applying the Ramkumar Choudhary doctrine, the Court noted that the Appellant was not diligent in prosecuting either the original Section 34 application (where they failed to appear or pay fees) or the present appeal.

The Court reasoned that "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally interpreted when there is evidence of inaction or lack of bona fides, and the State cannot fix its own period of limitation through administrative lapses.

Consequently, I.A. No. 6727/2022 for condonation of delay was rejected, and as the delay remained un-condoned, the Arbitration Appeal was dismissed.