STATE OF KERALA v. K. SREEDHARA KURUP

ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 20082Government Pleader did not intimate the matter to the appellantin time, hence there occurred delay in applying for the certifiedcopy. If this plea is accepted as a sufficient ground, then inevery case, where there is delay in submitting the application, the Court will be bound to accept such reasons as sufficientreasons for condonation of delay. May be for some or otherreasons the learned Counsel could not have intimated the clientimmediately after pronouncement of the judgment and in suchcircumstances, there may be some delay. Such cases aredistinguishable and some consideration could have been giventaking a liberal view, to condone the delay. But in this case nosuch explanation is offered. Further, why intimation to theclient is required for applying certified copy of thejudgment/order, since there is already a vakalath in favour of thelearned Counsel, which authorises him to apply for certified copyof the judgment/order.

3. Therefore, non submission of the application forcertified copy of the judgment on the ground of want ofinformation from the client, is not a valid or sufficient reason to ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 20083condone the delay. It is also averred in the affidavit thatsubsequently some changes occurred in the office of the DistrictGovernment Pleader. After receipt of certified copy of thejudgment there is some delay, for which, it is explained thatthey were waiting for the opinion from the Government forexamining the scope for filing the appeal. Even though thedelay, occurred after receipt of the certified copy of thejudgment, is explained properly, we find that the reasonsstated for the delay in applying for the certified copy is not at allsatisfactory to convince this Court that the delay was due tounavoidable circumstances beyond control. Therefore, there islaches on the part of the appellant in not preferring the appeal intime.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondent seriouslyopposed the application for condonation of delay. It is submittedby the learned Counsel that the judgment was delivered as earlyas in 1995 and that no steps were taken by the Government forsetting aside the award by filing any application as contemplatedunder the Arbitration Act. ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 OF 200845. In the facts and circumstances, we do not find anymerit in the application for condonation of delay in filing theappeal and it is accordingly dismissed. ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 of 2008:In view of dismissal of the application for condonation ofdelay in filing the Appeal, the Appeal is also dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk