News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 218 | 2026:CGHC:13694-DB
March 23, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed an arbitration appeal filed by the Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board against Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd., holding that the appellant failed to justify a delay of 110 days in filing the appeal beyond the statutory limitation period prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Rajani Dubey and Radhakishan Agrawal refused to condone the delay, observing that no “sufficient cause” had been shown to warrant such an extension. The Court held that the explanation offered by the Board reflected a casual and negligent approach, which cannot be accepted in commercial litigation governed by strict timelines.
The Court categorically noted that “no satisfactory or reasonable explanation has been furnished for such delay,” and that the cumulative delay of 110 days fell far outside the permissible limits under the statutory framework. Consequently, the application seeking condonation of delay was rejected, leading to dismissal of the appeal itself.
The dispute traces back to an agreement dated February 27, 2013 between the parties, pursuant to which disputes relating to monetary claims were referred to arbitration. A sole arbitrator passed an award on November 24, 2021.
Aggrieved by the award, the Marketing Board filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court on February 28, 2022. However, the Commercial Court dismissed the challenge on August 8, 2022, upholding the arbitral award.
Under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, an appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date of the impugned order. In the present case, the limitation period expired on October 7, 2022. However, the appeal was filed only on January 27, 2023, resulting in a delay of 110 days.
The appellant attributed the delay to procedural hurdles, time taken in obtaining legal opinion, and securing certified copies. It was argued that the delay was bona fide and unintentional.
The respondent opposed the plea, contending that the delay was deliberate and aimed at frustrating execution proceedings initiated to enforce the arbitral award.
Rejecting the appellant’s justification, the High Court held that procedural delays and internal decision-making processes do not constitute sufficient cause. The Bench emphasised that in commercial disputes, the standard for condonation of delay is stringent and must align with the legislative objective of expeditious dispute resolution.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., the Court reiterated that delay beyond the prescribed period can be condoned only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine.
The Court underscored that only a party acting bona fide and without negligence may be granted limited relief for short delays. In the present case, the conduct of the appellant did not meet this threshold.
With the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, the arbitration appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was also dismissed, effectively affirming the arbitral award in favour of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Reference : ARBA No. 8 of 2023, Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board v. M/s Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.; Counsels: for Appellant – Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate; for Respondent – Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Sameer Uraon, Advocate.
