Case: GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. M/S BORSE BROTHERS ENGINEERS &amp; CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD

This Court followed its earlier judgment in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111 [Varindera Constructions] and held as follows:3. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, we may observe that the matter is no longer res integra. In Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111 ] , this Court, by its judgment and order dated 17-9-2018 [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2020) 2 SCC 111 ] held thus: (SCC p. 112, paras 1-5)1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. By a judgment dated 19-4-2018 in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd. [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., (2018) 7 SCC 794 ], this Court has in near identical facts and circumstances allowed the appeal of the Union of India in a proceeding arising from an arbitral award.3. Ordinarily, we would have applied the said judgment to this case as well. However, we find that the impugned Division Bench judgment dated 10-4-2013 [Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 6511] has dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India on the ground of delay. The delay was found to be 142 days in filing the appeal and 103 days in refiling the appeal. One of the important points made by the Division Bench is that, apart from the fact that there is no sufficient cause made out in the grounds of delay, since a Section 34 application has to be filed within a maximum period of 120 days including the grace period of 30 days, an appeal filed from the selfsame proceeding under Section 37 should be covered by the same drill.4. Given the fact that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, as has been held in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri [Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, 1940 SCC OnLine FC 10 : AIR 1941 FC 5 ] , and repeatedly followed by our judgments, we feel that any delay beyond 120 days in the filing of an appeal under Section 37 from an application being either dismissed or allowed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should not be allowed as it will defeat the overall statutory purpose of arbitration proceedings being decided with utmost despatch.5. In this view of the matter, since even the original appeal was filed with a delay period of 142 days, we are not inclined to entertain these special leave petitions on the facts of this particular case. The special leave petitions stand disposed of accordingly.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.4. We may only add that what we have done in the aforesaid judgment is to add to the period of 90 days, which is provided by statute for filing of appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, a grace period of 30 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by following Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul [Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, 1940 SCC OnLine FC 10 : AIR 1941 FC 5 ] , as also having regard to the object of speedy resolution of all arbitral disputes which was uppermost in the minds of the framers of the 1996 Act, and which has been strengthened from time to time by amendments made thereto. The present delay being beyond 120 days is not liable, therefore, to be condoned.3. In two of the three appeals before us, i.e., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 665 of 2021 and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Diary No.18079 of 2020, the High Courts of Bombay and Delhi vide judgments dated 17.12.2020 and 15.10.2019 respectively, dismissed the appeals filed by the Government of Maharashtra and by the Union of India respectively, refusing to condone the delay in the filing of the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Arbitration Act] beyond 120 days. So far as the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.15278 of 2020 is concerned, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh refused to follow the judgment of this Court in N.V. International (supra) stating that there is a conflict between this judgment and the judgment of a larger Bench of this Court reported in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169 [Consolidated Engg.]. It was, therefore, held that it was open for the High Court to condone the delay applying section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Limitation Act] and, as a matter of fact, a delay of what was stated to be 57 days was condoned.

Reasoning:
15. As has correctly been pointed out by Shri Navare, the requirement of an arbitral procedure which is efficient and the minimising of the supervisory role of courts in arbitral process would certainly show that one of the main objectives of the Arbitration Act is the speedy disposal of disputes through the arbitral process. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act is important and states :5. Extent of judicial intervention.—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.23. Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, when read with section 43 thereof, makes it clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals that are filed under section 37. This takes us to Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act, which provide for a limitation period of 90 days and 30 days, depending upon whether the appeal is from any other court to a High Court or an intra-High Court appeal. There can be no doubt whatsoever that section 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to the aforesaid appeals, both by virtue of section 43 of the Arbitration Act and by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. This aspect of the matter has been set out in the concurring judgment of Raveendran, J. in Consolidated Engg. (supra), as follows:40. Let me next refer to the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides for the bar of limitation. It provides that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Prescribed period means that period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of the Limitation Act. Period of limitation means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule to the Limitation Act [vide Section 2(j) of the said Act]. Section 29 of the Limitation Act relates to savings. Sub-section (2) thereof which is relevant is extracted below:29. (2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.41. Article 116 of the Schedule prescribes the period of limitation for appeals to the High Court (90 days) and appeals to any other court (30 days) under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is now well settled that the words appeals under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 occurring in Article 116 refer not only to appeals preferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but also to appeals, where the procedure for filing of such appeals and powers of the court for dealing with such appeals are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure. (See decision of the Constitution Bench in Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel [AIR 1964 SC 1099 ] .) Article 119(b) of the Schedule prescribes the period of limitation for filing an application (under the Arbitration Act, 1940), for setting aside an award, as thirty days from the date of service of notice of filing of the award.42. The AC Act is no doubt, a special law, consolidating and amending the law relating to arbitration and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The AC Act does not prescribe the period of limitation, for various proceedings under that Act, except where it intends to prescribe a period different from what is prescribed in the Limitation Act. On the other hand, Section 43 makes the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to proceedings—both in court and in arbitration—under the AC Act. There is also no express exclusion of application of any provision of the Limitation Act to proceedings under the AC Act, but there are some specific departures from the general provisions of the Limitation Act, as for example, the proviso to Section 34(3) and sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section 43 of the AC Act.43. Where the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes a period of limitation for appeals or applications to any court, and the special or local law provides for filing of appeals and applications to the court, but does not prescribe any period of limitation in regard to such appeals or applications, the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Limitation Act will apply to such appeals or applications and consequently, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 will also apply. Where the special or local law prescribes for any appeal or application, a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act, then the provisions of Section 29(2) will be attracted. In that event, the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act will apply, as if the period of limitation prescribed under the special law was the period prescribed by the Schedule to the Limitation Act, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for the appeal or application by the special law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 will apply to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special law. The object of Section 29(2) is to ensure that the principles contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act apply to suits, appeals and applications filed in a court under special or local laws also, even if it prescribes a period of limitation different from what is prescribed in the Limitation Act, except to the extent of express exclusion of the application of any or all of those provisions.24. When the Commercial Courts Act is applied to the aforesaid appeals, given the definition of specified value and the provisions contained in sections 10 and 13 thereof, it is clear that it is only when the specified value is for a sum less than three lakh rupees that the appellate provision contained in section 37 of the Arbitration Act will be governed, for the purposes of limitation, by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act. Shri Deshmukhs argument that depending upon which court decides a matter, a limitation period of either 30 or 90 days is provided, which leads to arbitrary results, and that, therefore, the uniform period provided by Article 137 of the Limitation Act should govern appeals as well, is rejected. It is settled that periods of limitation must always to some extent be arbitrary and may result in some hardship, but this is no reason as to why they should not be strictly followed. In Boota Mal v. Union of India, (1963) 1 SCR 70 , this Court referred to this aspect of the case, as follows:Ordinarily, the words of a statute have to be given their strict grammatical meaning and equitable considerations are out of place, particularly in provisions of law limiting the period of limitation for filing suits or legal proceedings. This was laid down by the Privy Council in two decisions in Nagendranath v. Suresh [AIR(1932) PC 165] and General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Limited v. Janmahomed Abdul Rahim [AIR (1941) PC 6 ] . In the first case the Privy Council observed that the fixation of periods of limitation must always be to some extent arbitrary and may frequently result in hardship. But in construing such provisions equitable considerations are out of place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is the only safe guide. In the latter case it was observed that a limitation Act ought to receive such a construction as the language in its plain meaning imports … Great hardship may occasionally be caused by statutes of limitation in cases of poverty, distress and ignorance of rights, yet the statutory rules must be enforced according to their ordinary meaning in these and in other like cases. (pages 74-75)25. Shri Deshmukhs other argument that since no period of limitation has been provided in section 37 of the Arbitration Act, as a result of which the neat division contained in the Limitation Act of different matters contained in suits, appeals and applications will somehow have to be destroyed, the word appeals has to be read into applications so that Article 137 of the Limitation Act could apply, is also rejected.26. Even in the rare situation in which an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act would be of a specified value less than three lakh rupees, resulting in Article 116 or 117 of the Limitation Act applying, the main object of the Arbitration Act requiring speedy resolution of disputes would be the most important principle to be applied when applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act are filed to condone delay beyond 90 days and/or 30 days depending upon whether Article 116(a) or 116(b) or 117 applies. As a matter of fact, given the timelines contained in sections 8, 9(2), 11(4), 11(13), 13(2)-(5), 29A, 29B, 33(3)-(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, and the observations made in some of this Courts judgments, the object of speedy resolution of disputes would govern appeals covered by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act.27. This Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 , put it thus:14. Here the history and scheme of the 1996 Act support the conclusion that the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 to challenge an award is absolute and unextendible by court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Arbitration and Conciliation Bill, 1995 which preceded the 1996 Act stated as one of its main objectives the need to minimise the supervisory role of courts in the arbitral process [ Para 4(v) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996] . This objective has found expression in Section 5 of the Act which prescribes the extent of judicial intervention in no uncertain terms:5. Extent of judicial intervention.— Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.15. The Part referred to in Section 5 is Part I of the 1996 Act which deals with domestic arbitrations. Section 34 is contained in Part I and is therefore subject to the sweep of the prohibition contained in Section 5 of the 1996 Act.28. Likewise, in State of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006) 6 SCC 239 , this Court, while stating that the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply to applications filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, held:25. … It is true that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 intended to expedite commercial issues expeditiously. It is also clear in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that in order to recognise economic reforms the settlement of both domestic and international commercial disputes should be disposed of quickly so that the countrys economic progress be expedited…30. A recent judgment of this Court in ICOMM Tele Ltd. v. Punjab State Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (2019) 4 SCC 401 , states:25. Several judgments of this Court have also reiterated that the primary object of arbitration is to reach a final disposal of disputes in a speedy, effective, inexpensive and expeditious manner. Thus, in Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. [Centrotrade Minerals & Metal Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd., (2017) 2 SCC 228 : (2017) 1 SCC (Civ) 593] , this Court held: (SCC p. 250, para 39)39. In Union of India v. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. [Union of India v. U.P. State Bridge Corpn. Ltd., (2015) 2 SCC 52 : (2015) 1 SCC (Civ) 732] this Court accepted the view [ Indu Malhotra, O.P. Malhotra on the Law and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation (3rd Edn., Thomson Reuters, 2014).] that the A&C Act has four foundational pillars and then observed in para 16 of the Report that: (SCC p. 64)16. First and paramount principle of the first pillar is fair, speedy and inexpensive trial by an Arbitral Tribunal. Unnecessary delay or expense would frustrate the very purpose of arbitration.31. Thus, from the scheme of the Arbitration Act as well as the aforesaid judgments, condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be seen in the context of the object of speedy resolution of disputes.32. The bulk of appeals, however, to the appellate court under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, are governed by section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. Sub-section (1A) of section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act provides the forum for appeals as well as the limitation period to be followed, section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act being a special law as compared with the Limitation Act which is a general law, which follows from a reading of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act lays down a period of limitation of 60 days uniformly for all appeals that are preferred under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.The first important thing to note is that section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act does not contain any provision akin to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act only provides for a limitation period of 60 days from the date of the judgment or order appealed against, without further going into whether delay beyond this period can or cannot be condoned.34. It may also be pointed out that though the object of expeditious disposal of appeals is laid down in section 14 of the Commercial Courts Act, the language of section 14 makes it clear that the period of six months spoken of is directory and not mandatory. By way of contrast, section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act read with the Schedule thereof and the amendment made to Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, would make it clear that the defendant in a suit is given 30 days to file a written statement, which period cannot be extended beyond 120 days from the date of service of the summons; and on expiry of the said period, the defendant forfeits the right to file the written statement and the court cannot allow the written statement to be taken on record. This provision was enacted as a result of the judgment of this Court in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. 35. In a recent judgment of this Court namely, SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd., (2019) 12 SCC 210 , a Division Bench of this Court referred to the aforesaid amendment and its hard and fast nature as follows:8. The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 23-10-2015 bringing in their wake certain amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure. In Order 5 Rule 1, sub-rule (1), for the second proviso, the following proviso was substituted:Provided further that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.Equally, in Order 8 Rule 1, a new proviso was substituted as follows:Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written statement within the said period of thirty days, he shall be allowed to file the written statement on such other day, as may be specified by the court, for reasons to be recorded in writing and on payment of such costs as the court deems fit, but which shall not be later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons and on expiry of one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record.This was re-emphasised by re-inserting yet another proviso in Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, which reads as under:10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court.—Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up:Provided further that no court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this Order for filing of the written statement.A perusal of these provisions would show that ordinarily a written statement is to be filed within a period of 30 days. However, grace period of a further 90 days is granted which the Court may employ for reasons to be recorded in writing and payment of such costs as it deems fit to allow such written statement to come on record. What is of great importance is the fact that beyond 120 days from the date of service of summons, the defendant shall forfeit the right to file the written statement and the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record. This is further buttressed by the proviso in Order 8 Rule 10 also adding that the court has no further power to extend the time beyond this period of 120 days.9. In Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti [State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 387] , a question was raised as to whether Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inserted by Amending Act 3 of 2016 is mandatory or directory. In para 11 of the said judgment, this Court referred to Kailash v. Nanhku [Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 ] , referring to the text of Order 8 Rule 1 as it stood pre the amendment made by the Commercial Courts Act. It also referred (in para 12) to Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India [Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (2) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 ] , which, like the Kailash [Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 ] judgment, held that the mere expression shall in Order 8 Rule 1 would not make the provision mandatory. This Court then went on to discuss in para 17 of State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran [State v. N.S. Gnaneswaran, (2013) 3 SCC 594 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 235 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 688] , in which Section 154(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was held to be directory inasmuch as no consequence was provided if the section was breached. In para 22 by way of contrast to Section 34, Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act was set out. This Court then noted in para 23 as under: (Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti case [State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, (2018) 9 SCC 472 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 387] , SCC p. 489)23. It will be seen from this provision that, unlike Sections 34(5) and (6), if an award is made beyond the stipulated or extended period contained in the section, the consequence of the mandate of the arbitrator being terminated is expressly provided. This provision is in stark contrast to Sections 34(5) and (6) where, as has been stated hereinabove, if the period for deciding the application under Section 34 has elapsed, no consequence is provided. This is one more indicator that the same Amendment Act, when it provided time periods in different situations, did so intending different consequences.10. Several High Court judgments on the amended Order 8 Rule 1 have now held that given the consequence of non- filing of written statement, the amended provisions of the CPC will have to be held to be mandatory. See Oku Tech (P) Ltd. v. Sangeet Agarwal [Oku Tech (P) Ltd. v. Sangeet Agarwal, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6601] by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated 11-8-2016 in CS (OS) No. 3390 of 2015 as followed by several other judgments including a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Maja Cosmetics v. Oasis Commercial (P) Ltd. [Maja Cosmetics v. Oasis Commercial (P) Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6698]11. We are of the view that the view taken by the Delhi High Court in these judgments is correct in view of the fact that the consequence of forfeiting a right to file the written statement; non-extension of any further time; and the fact that the Court shall not allow the written statement to be taken on record all points to the fact that the earlier law on Order 8 Rule 1 on the filing of written statement under Order 8 Rule 1 has now been set at naught.36. By way of contrast, there is no such provision contained in section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The judgment in Hongo (supra), strongly relied upon by Dr. George, is clearly distinguishable. In Hongo (supra), section 35-H of the Central Excise Act provided for a period of 180 days for filing a reference application to the High Court. The scheme of the Central Excise Act was adverted to in paragraph 15 of the judgment, which reads as follows:15. We have already pointed out that in the case of appeal to the Commissioner, Section 35 provides 60 days time and in addition to the same, the Commissioner has power to condone the delay up to 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, Section 35-B provides 90 days time for filing appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and sub-section (5) therein enables the Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay irrespective of the number of days, if sufficient cause is shown. Likewise, Section 35-EE which provides 90 days time for filing revision by the Central Government and, proviso to the same enables the revisional authority to condone the delay for a further period of 90 days, if sufficient cause is shown, whereas in the case of appeal to the High Court under Section 35-G and reference to the High Court under Section 35-H of the Act, total period of 180 days has been provided for availing the remedy of appeal and the reference. However, there is no further clause empowering the High Court to condone the delay after the period of 180 days.37. The Court then went on to observe:33. Even otherwise, for filing an appeal to the Commissioner, and to the Appellate Tribunal as well as revision to the Central Government, the legislature has provided 60 days and 90 days respectively, on the other hand, for filing an appeal and reference to the High Court larger period of 180 days has been provided with to enable the Commissioner and the other party to avail the same. We are of the view that the legislature provided sufficient time, namely, 180 days for filing reference to the High Court which is more than the period prescribed for an appeal and revision.34. Though, an argument was raised based on Section 29 of the Limitation Act, even assuming that Section 29(2) would be attracted, what we have to determine is whether the provisions of this section are expressly excluded in the case of reference to the High Court.35. It was contended before us that the words expressly excluded would mean that there must be an express reference made in the special or local law to the specific provisions of the Limitation Act of which the operation is to be excluded. In this regard, we have to see the scheme of the special law which here in this case is the Central Excise Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein is such that the legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our considered view, that even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation. In other words, the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, therefore, is to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act but by the provisions of the Central Excise Act relating to filing of reference application to the High Court.36. The scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 supports the conclusion that the time-limit prescribed under Section 35-H(1) to make a reference to the High Court is absolute and unextendable by a court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is well-settled law that it is the duty of the court to respect the legislative intent and by giving liberal interpretation, limitation cannot be extended by invoking the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.38. Unlike the scheme of the Central Excise Act relied upon in Hongo (supra), there are no other provisions in the Commercial Courts Act which provide for a period of limitation coupled with a condonation of delay provision which is either open-ended or capped. Also, the period of 180 days provided was one indicia which led the Court to exclude the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act, as it was double and triple the period provided for appeals under the other provisions of the same Act. Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, by way of contrast, applies an intermediate period of 60 days for filing an appeal, that is, a period that is halfway between 30 days and 90 days provided by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act.39. The other judgments relied upon by Dr. George are all distinguishable in that they are judgments which deal with provisions that provide for a period of limitation and a period of condonation of delay beyond which delay cannot be condoned, such as section 125 of the Electricity Act. (See Suryachakra Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Electricity Deptt., (2016) 16 SCC 152 at paragraph 10; ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corpn. Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 42  at paragraphs 5-10).40. Section 21 of the Commercial Courts Act was also pressed into service stating that the non-obstante clause contained in the Commercial Courts Act would override other Acts, including the Limitation Act, as a result of which, the applicability of section 5 thereof would be excluded. This argument has been addressed in the context of the IBC in B.K. Educational Services (P) Ltd. v. Parag Gupta & Associates, (2019) 11 SCC 633 , as follows:41. Shri Dholakia argued that the Code being complete in itself, an intruder such as the Limitation Act must be shut out also by application of Section 238 of the Code which provides that, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Code would override such laws. In fact, Section 60(6) of the Code specifically states as follows:60. Adjudicating authority for corporate persons.—(1)-(5) * * *(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded.This provision would have been wholly unnecessary if the Limitation Act was otherwise excluded either by reason of the Code being complete in itself or by virtue of Section 238 of the Code. Both, Section 433 of the Companies Act as well as Section 238-A of the Code, apply the provisions of the Limitation Act as far as may be. Obviously, therefore, where periods of limitation have been laid down in the Code, these periods will apply notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Limitation Act. From this, it does not follow that the baby must be thrown out with the bathwater. This argument, therefore, must also be rejected.41. For all these reasons we reject the argument made by Shri George that the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded given the scheme of Commercial Courts Act.Firstly, as has correctly been argued by Shri Shroti, N.V. International (supra) does not notice the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act at all and can be said to be per incuriam on this count. Secondly, it is also correct to note that the period of 90 days plus 30 days and not thereafter mentioned in section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot now apply, the limitation period for filing of appeals under the Commercial Courts Act being 60 days and not 90 days. Thirdly, the argument that absent a provision curtailing the condonation of delay beyond the period provided in section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act would also make it clear that any such bodily lifting of the last part of section 34(3) into section 37 of the Arbitration Act would also be unwarranted. We cannot accept Shri Navares argument that this is a mere casus omissus which can be filled in by the Court.43. The difference between interpretation and legislation is sometimes a fine one, as it has repeatedly been held that judges do not merely interpret the law but also create law. In Eera v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 15 SCC 133 , this Court was faced with the interpretation of section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. This provision reads as follows:(2)(1)(d) child means any person below the age of eighteen years;44. The argument made before the Court was that the age of 18 years did not only refer to physical age, but could also refer to the mental age of the child as defined. This Court was therefore faced with the difficulty between interpreting the law as it stands, and legislating. The concurring judgment of Nariman, J. put it thus:103. Having read the erudite judgment of my learned Brother, and agreeing fully with him on the conclusion reached, given the importance of the Montesquiean separation of powers doctrine where the judiciary should not transgress from the field of judicial law-making into the field of legislative law-making, I have felt it necessary to add a few words of my own.104. Mr Sanjay R. Hegde, the learned Amicus Curiae, has argued before us that the interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 cannot include mental age as such an interpretation would be beyond the Lakshman Rekha — that is, it is no part of this Courts function to add to or amend the law as it stands. This Courts function is limited to interpreting the law as it stands, and this being the case, he has exhorted us not to go against the plain literal meaning of the statute.105. Since Mr Hegdes argument raises the constitutional spectre of separation of powers, let it first be admitted that under our constitutional scheme, Judges only declare the law; it is for the legislatures to make the law. This much at least is clear on a conjoint reading of Articles 141 and 245 of the Constitution of India, which are set out hereinbelow:141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.—The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the legislatures of States.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the legislature of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State.(2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.106. That the legislature cannot declare law is embedded in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. Bills of attainder, which used to be passed by Parliament in England, have never been passed from the 18th century onwards. A legislative judgment is anathema. As early as 1789, the US Constitution expressly outlawed bills of attainder vide Article I Section 9(3). This being the case with the legislature, the counter-argument is that the Judiciary equally cannot make but can only declare law. While declaring the law, can Judges make law as well?...45. The concurring judgment went on to state:127. It is thus clear on a reading of English, US, Australian and our own Supreme Court judgments that the Lakshman Rekha has in fact been extended to move away from the strictly literal rule of interpretation back to the rule of the old English case of Heydon [Heydon case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] , where the Court must have recourse to the purpose, object, text and context of a particular provision before arriving at a judicial result. In fact, the wheel has turned full circle. It started out by the rule as stated in 1584 in Heydon case [Heydon case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] , which was then waylaid by the literal interpretation rule laid down by the Privy Council and the House of Lords in the mid-1800s, and has come back to restate the rule somewhat in terms of what was most felicitously put over 400 years ago in Heydon case [Heydon case, (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] .139. A reading of the Act as a whole in the light of the Statement of Objects and Reasons thus makes it clear that the intention of the legislator was to focus on children, as commonly understood i.e. persons who are physically under the age of 18 years. The golden rule in determining whether the judiciary has crossed the Lakshman Rekha in the guise of interpreting a statute is really whether a Judge has only ironed out the creases that he found in a statute in the light of its object, or whether he has altered the material of which the Act is woven. In short, the difference is the well-known philosophical difference between is and ought. Does the Judge put himself in the place of the legislator and ask himself whether the legislator intended a certain result, or does he state that this must have been the intent of the legislator and infuse what he thinks should have been done had he been the legislator. If the latter, it is clear that the Judge then would add something more than what there is in the statute by way of a supposed intention of the legislator and would go beyond creative interpretation of legislation to legislating itself. It is at this point that the Judge crosses the Lakshman Rekha and becomes a legislator, stating what the law ought to be instead of what the law is.46. Ultimately, the judgment concluded:146. A reading of the Objects and Reasons of the aforesaid Act together with the provisions contained therein would show that whatever is the physical age of the person affected, such person would be a person with disability who would be governed by the provisions of the said Act. Conspicuous by its absence is the reference to any age when it comes to protecting persons with disabilities under the said Act.147. Thus, it is clear that viewed with the lens of the legislator, we would be doing violence both to the intent and the language of Parliament if we were to read the word mental into Section 2(1)(d) of the 2012 Act. Given the fact that it is a beneficial/penal legislation, we as Judges can extend it only as far as Parliament intended and no further. I am in agreement, therefore, with the judgment of my learned Brother, including the directions given by him.47. Given the lakshman rekha laid down in this judgment, it is a little difficult to appreciate how a cap can be judicially engrafted onto a statutory provision which then bars condonation of delay by even one day beyond the cap so engrafted.We are afraid that we are unable to agree. This sentence was in the context of a decree passed in a civil suit for a sum of rupees 3.09 lakh with interest, without taking into consideration the fact that an amount of rupees 2.10 lakh had already been deposited by the appellant in criminal proceedings. The Court relied upon section 357(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to hold that the court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation at the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. The court would obviously include an appellate court as well. It was only in this context that the aforesaid observation of limitation of power on a civil court being borne in mind by the appellate court, was made.50. Shri Georges reliance upon the judgment of this Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 13 SCC 445 ( at paragraphs 36.2-36.3) on the doctrine of unbreakability when applied to section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, also does not carry the matter much further, as the question is whether this doctrine can be bodily lifted and engrafted onto an appeal provision that has no cut-off point beyond which delay cannot be condoned.For all these reasons, given the illuminating arguments made in these appeals, we are of the view that N.V. International (supra) has been wrongly decided and is therefore overruled.51. However, the matter does not end here. The question still arises as to the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals which are governed by a uniform 60-day period of limitation. At one extreme, we have the judgment in N.V. International (supra) which does not allow condonation of delay beyond 30 days, and at the other extreme, we have an open-ended provision in which any amount of delay can be condoned, provided sufficient cause is shown. It is between these two extremes that we have to steer a middle course.53. Reading the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act as a whole, it is clear that when section 37 of the Arbitration Act is read with either Article 116 or 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, the object and context provided by the aforesaid statutes, read as a whole, is the speedy disposal of appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. To read section 5 of the Limitation Act consistently with the aforesaid object, it is necessary to discover as to what the expression sufficient cause means in the context of condoning delay in filing appeals under section 37 of the Arbitration Act.54. The expression sufficient cause contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act is elastic enough to yield different results depending upon the object and context of a statute. Thus, in Ajmer Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2004) 7 SCC 381 , this Court, in the context of section 11(5) of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, held as follows:10. Permitting an application under Section 11(5) to be moved at any time would have disastrous consequences. The State Government in which the land vests on being declared as surplus, will not be able to utilise the same. The State Government cannot be made to wait indefinitely before putting the land to use. Where the land is utilised by the State Government, a consequence of the order passed subsequently could be of divesting it of the land. Taking the facts of the present case by way of an illustration, it would mean that the land which stood mutated in the State Government in 1982 and which was allotted by the State Government to third parties in 1983, would as a result of reopening the settled position, lead to third parties being asked to restore back the land to the State Government and the State Government in turn would have to be divested of the land. The land will in turn be restored to the landowner. This will be the result of the land being declared by the Collector as not surplus with the landowner. The effect of permitting such a situation will be that the land will remain in a situation of flux. There will be no finality. The very purpose of the legislation will be defeated. The allottee will not be able to utilise the land for fear of being divested in the event of deaths and births in the family of the landowners. Deaths and births are events which are bound to occur. Therefore, it is reasonable to read a time-limit in sub-section (5) of Section 11. The concept of reasonable time in the given facts would be most appropriate. An application must be moved within a reasonable time. The facts of the present case demonstrate that redetermination under sub-section (5) of Section 11 almost 5 years after the death of Kartar Kaur and more than 6 years after the order of the Collector declaring the land as surplus had become final, has resulted in grave injustice besides defeating the object of the legislation which was envisaged as a socially beneficial piece of legislation. Thus we hold that the application for redetermination filed by Daya Singh under sub-section (5) of Section 11 of the Act on 21-6-1985 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and the Collector was wrong in reopening the issue declaring the land as not surplus in the hands of Daya Singh and Kartar Kaur.11. The above reasoning is in consonance with the provision in sub-section (7) of Section 11 of the Act. Sub- section (7) uses the words where succession has opened after the surplus area or any part thereof has been determined by the Collector …. The words determined by the Collector would mean that the order of the Collector has attained finality. The provisions regarding appeals, etc. contained in Sections 80-82 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as made applicable to proceedings under the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, show that the maximum period of limitation in case of appeal or review is ninety days. The appeal against the final order of the Collector dated 30-9- 1976 whereby 3.12 hectares of land had been declared as surplus was dismissed on 27-3-1979. The order was allowed to become final as it was not challenged any further. Thus the determination by the Collector became final on 27-3-1979. The same could not be reopened after a lapse of more than 6 years by order dated 23-7-1985. The subsequent proceedings before the Revenue Authorities did not lie. The order dated 23-7-1985 is non est. All the subsequent proceedings therefore fall through. The issue could not have been reopened.55. Nearer home, in Brahampal v. National Insurance Company, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1053, this Court specifically referred to the difference between a delay in filing commercial claims under the Arbitration Act or the Commercial Courts Act and claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as follows:16. This Court has firstly held that purpose of conferment of such power must be examined for the determination of the scope of such discretion conferred upon the court. [refer to Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwandin v. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, AIR 1963 SC 120 ; Shri Prakash Chand Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd., (1970) 2 SCC 806 ]. Our analysis of the purpose of the Act suggests that such discretionary power is conferred upon the Courts, to enforce the rights of the victims and their dependents. The legislature intended that Courts must have such power so as to ensure that substantive justice is not trumped by technicalities.22. Therefore, the aforesaid provision being a beneficial legislation, must be given liberal interpretation to serve its object. Keeping in view the substantive rights of the parties, undue emphasis should not be given to technicalities. In such cases delay in filing and refiling cannot be viewed strictly, as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Concilliation Act, 1996 or the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar, (2019) 13 SCC 445 , wherein this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, held that the right to object to an award itself is substantively bound with the limitation period prescribed therein and the same cannot merely a procedural prescription. In effect the Court held that a complete petition, has to be filed within the time prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and not thereafter. The Court while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, reasoned as under:36.1 First, the purpose of the Arbitration Act was to provide for a speedy dispute resolution process. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reveal that the legislative intent of enacting the Arbitration Act was to provide parties with an efficient alternative dispute resolution system which gives litigants an expedited resolution of disputes while reducing the burden on the courts. Article 34(3) reflects this intent when it defines the commencement and concluding period for challenging an award. This Court in Popular Construction case [Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 ] highlighted the importance of the fixed periods under the Arbitration Act. We may also add that the finality is a fundamental principle enshrined under the Arbitration Act and a definitive time- limit for challenging an award is necessary for ensuring finality. If Section 17 were to be applied, an award can be challenged even after 120 days. This would defeat the Arbitration Acts objective of speedy resolution of disputes. The finality of award would also be in a limbo as a party can challenge an award even after the 120 day period.(emphasis in original)23. Coming back to the Motor Vehicles Act, the legislative intent is to provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protect their substantive rights, in pursuit of the same, the interpretation should not be as strict as commercial claims as elucidated above.24. Undoubtedly, the statute has granted the Courts with discretionary powers to condone the delay, however at the same time it also places an obligation upon the party to justify that he was prevented from abiding by the same due to the existence of sufficient cause. Although there exists no strait jacket formula for the Courts to condone delay, but the Courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of case but also the conduct of the parties. The concept of reasonableness dictates that, the Courts even while taking a liberal approach must weigh in the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the other, this Court shall refrain from exercising the aforesaid discretionary relief.25. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the delay of45 days has been properly explained by the appellants, which was on account of illness of the wife of Appellant No. 1. It was not appropriate on the part of the High Court to dismiss the appeal merely on the ground of delay of short duration, particularly in matters involving death in motor accident claims. Moreover, in the present case no mala fide can be imputable against the appellants for filing the appeal after the expiry of ninety days. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the strict approach taken in the impugned order is hyper-technical and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.56. Given the object sought to be achieved under both the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, that is, the speedy resolution of disputes, the expression sufficient cause is not elastic enough to cover long delays beyond the period provided by the appeal provision itself. Besides, the expression sufficient cause is not itself a loose panacea for the ill of pressing negligent and stale claims. This Court, in Basawaraj v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81 , has held:9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word sufficient is adequate or enough, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word sufficient embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, sufficient cause means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has not acted diligently or remained inactive. However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336 ] , Mata Din v. A. Narayanan [(1969) 2 SCC 770 : AIR 1970 SC 1953 ] , Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545 : (2011) 2 SCC (Civ) 1 : AIR 2011 SC 1150 ] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 24 : AIR 2012 SC 1629 ] .)10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993 ] this Court explained the difference between a good cause and a sufficient cause and observed that every sufficient cause is a good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with on a lesser degree of proof than that of sufficient cause.11. The expression sufficient cause should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done, but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible. (Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100 ] and Ram Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201 ] .)12. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means the law is hard but it is the law, stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.13. The statute of limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. According to Halsburys Laws of England, Vol. 28, p. 266:605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.—The courts have expressed at least three differing reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitations namely, (1) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than justice in them, (2) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to disprove a stale claim, and (3) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence.An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a partys own inaction, negligence or laches. (See Popat and Kotecha Property v. SBI Staff Assn. [(2005) 7 SCC 510] , Rajender Singh v. Santa Singh [(1973) 2 SCC 705 : AIR 1973 SC 2537 ] and Pundlik Jalam Patil v. Jalgaon Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 907] .)14. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 830 : AIR 2002 SC 1856 ] this Court held that judicially engrafting principles of limitation amounts to legislating and would fly in the face of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [(1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93 : AIR 1992 SC 1701 ] .15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the sufficient cause which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.