Stating that the Vadodara Municipal Corporation (VMC) “utterly failed” in giving a “reasonable explanation”, Gujarat High Court on October 7 dismissed an application of the VMC seeking condonation for the 137 days delay in challenging the order of a commercial court in Vadodara, which directed the civic body to clear payments to infrastructure firm Ranjit Buildcon Pvt Ltd for works completed in December 2012. Terming as "misleading and erroneous" the statements made in the affidavit of the executive engineer of the VMC about why the appeal was filed on July 9, 2025, the High Court also rejected the reason that the delay was due to three months' leave and subsequent resignation of the then executive engineer of the Bridge Project department, who was the authorised officer to have filed the appeal after receiving the clearance from the Municipal Commissioner in March this year. The Gujarat High Court division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray dismissed the VMC's application, stating that the "wholly misconceived" appeal does not provide an explanation regarding the delay of 137 days to the satisfaction of the court. The oral order of the court states, ".a casual statement has been made in the affidavit of the executive engineer (Bridge Project), authorized officer of the appellant-corporation about the delay in processing the matter for filing the present appeal. In one of the paragraphs of the application seeking condonation while explaining delay, it is stated that the matter could not be processed on account of leave taken by the then executive engineer for a period of three months namely March, April and May, 2025. Then, the executive engineer had submitted his resignation and when the new incumbent had joined, the file was located and sent to the legal department." Noting that since the necessary approval was granted by the Municipal Commissioner on March 19, 2025, the delay was "not to the satisfaction of the court", the oral order states, "Further assertion in the application is of the period after June 3, 2025, with regard to which it is submitted that due to summer vacation of the High Court, the advocate was not available and the draft for filing of the appeal was prepared on July 9, 2025, which was the first day after the re-opening of the High Court after summer vacation. This statement made in the affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer of the Corporation is completely misleading and erroneous." The court said that the explanation that the Executive Engineer was engaged in administrative work of the corporation between June 6 to June 24 "cannot be accepted as sufficient explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal." The court order also noted that the award for payment under dispute is of the year 2017 and the claim of the contractor pertains to the final bills of the year 2012 awarded by the Arbitrator. "About 13 years have passed and the contractor has not been able to receive the payment even after completion of the work (in 2012). The Commercial Court while rejecting the application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, categorically records that none of the findings of the learned Arbitrator appears to be patently illegal, rather they are in fact informed with adequate reasons and consideration of evidence placed before it." The court added that "no perversity in the interpretation of the contract", which can shock the conscience of the court, was put forth to warrant court interference. Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, specifies which orders are appealable in arbitration proceedings. Stating that precedents cited by the lawyer appearing for the VMC could not be applied in the case, the oral order of the High Court also cited a 2021 precedent of the Supreme Court, which stated, ".for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches." Officials of the VMC, who requested anonymity said, "At the time the commercial court passed the order in February, the then executive engineer of the Bridge Project department, to which the appeal pertains, had been on extended medical leave for three months. He eventually resigned due to the medical condition. By the time the new officer was appointed, the delay had already occurred but the transfer of charge after a long gap and the immediate unavailability of the lawyer also resulted in the delay. We are unaware why the delay happened after the lawyer had begun filing the draft."
