Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)
Order Date: 18 September 2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Laxmi Kanta Sharma and others, partners of M/s Atlanta International, residing at 4C, Utsav Garden, Sati Joymati Road, Athgaon, Guwahati‑781001; also Alka Sharma (wife of Laxmi Kanta Sharma).
- Respondents: M/s Atlanta International and two others, partnership firm, represented by partner Ajay Shankar Jagati, office at AAC Commercial Complex, S.J. Road, Athgaon, Guwahati‑781001; also Ajay Shankar Jagati and his wife Madhu Jagati.
- Linked case: FAO/4153/2026.
- The petition sought condonation of a 139‑day delay in filing a connected appeal (FAO) against the order dated 16‑08‑2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kamrup, Amingaon, in Misc. (J) Case No.374 of 2024 (arising out of Title Suit No.161 of 2024), which had rejected the petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- The applicants had earlier filed a civil revision (CRP I.O. 18/2026) before this Court, which was dismissed on 01‑04‑2026, granting liberty to file an appeal.
- The delay was attributed to the applicants being unaware of the order until 14‑10‑2025, obtaining a certified true copy on 16‑10‑2025, and the appellant’s personal absence due to a family death until 23‑11‑2025; the civil revision was filed on 25‑11‑2025.
- Counsel argued that the order dated 16‑08‑2025 is appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, leading to withdrawal of the civil revision and permission to file an appeal.
- The applicants claimed 139 days of delay, of which 127 days resulted from proceedings before the wrong forum and 5 days for memo preparation; the appeal was filed on 06‑04‑2026, resulting in a 129‑day filing delay.
- Respondent’s affidavit‑in‑opposition contended lack of sufficient cause and alleged negligence by the applicants.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court observed that the primary cause of delay was the pendency of the civil revision petition filed in the wrong forum, which is attributable to the counsel, not the applicants.
- Established law that an applicant should not suffer due to counsel’s error.
- Found the explanations provided by the applicants sufficient to justify condonation of the 139‑day delay.
Final Outcome
- The Court condoned the 139‑day delay in filing the connected appeal.
- The petition was allowed.
- The Registry was directed to register the appeal and list it for admission after one week.
Topics: Arbitration, Limitation Act