UNION OF INDIA AND ANR vs SMTI KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI Advocate - MR. S SAHU, ,G IMTIAZ,S ALI,MS. M NATH,MR. A IKBAL,MS. J SARMA,MR. R BARUAH,MS A ROY,FOR CAVEATOR — Arb.A./3/2025

Case under Arbitration Act, 1940 (Repealed) Section 39. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 29th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010196982025

e-Filing Number

28-08-2025

Filing Number

Arb.A./11288/2025

Filing Date

29-Aug-2025

Registration No

Arb.A./3/2025

Registration Date

06-Sep-2025

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10229 - Other First Appeals. ( 196 )

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

29-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Arbitration Act, 1940 (Repealed) Section 39

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

    Adv. MRS. A GAYAN

  2. 2.GARRISION ENGINEER (AIR FORCE)

    Adv. ANURADHA GAYAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SMTI KRISHNA DEVI @ SABITRI DEVI Advocate - MR. S SAHU, ,G IMTIAZ,S ALI,MS. M NATH,MR. A IKBAL,MS. J SARMA,MR. R BARUAH,MS A ROY,FOR CAVEATOR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 29-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

    Case Summary: Arb.A./3/2025 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against an order denying condonation of delay in filing objections to an arbitral award. The court held that the appellants failed to provide sufficient cause for the 57-day delay beyond the 30-day limitation period that expired on 20.10.2022, as definitively established by the Supreme Court's January 2025 judgment. Key Reasoning: Although the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the limitation period commenced from 21.09.2022 (not 18.11.2022 as the Union claimed), the appellants provided no justified explanation for the delay between the expiry date and December 2022 filing. The court rejected arguments about misunderstanding the law, emphasizing that once the statutory limitation expires, the award holder acquires a vested right that cannot be "light heartedly disturbed" without genuine sufficient cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 29-May-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

  4. 15-May-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

  5. 08-May-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

  6. 16-Mar-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita

  7. 26-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar KalitaView PDF

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kaushik Goswami

  9. 12-Feb-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Kaushik GoswamiView PDF

  10. 12-Feb-2026

    Hearing

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Mitali Thakuria

  11. 08-Jan-2026

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Mitali ThakuriaView PDF

  12. 08-Jan-2026

    Delivery Of Order

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

  13. 11-Dec-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  14. 11-Sep-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  15. 11-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 08-Sep-2025

    Honourable Mrs. Justice Susmita Phukan KhaundView PDF

  17. 29-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. Arb.A./3/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Arb.A./3/2025 Court Decision: The Gauhati High Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against an order denying condonation of delay in filing objections to an arbitral award. The court held that the appellants failed to provide sufficient cause for the 57-day delay beyond the 30-day limitation period that expired on 20.10.2022, as definitively established by the Supreme Court's January 2025 judgment. Key Reasoning: Although the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the limitation period commenced from 21.09.2022 (not 18.11.2022 as the Union claimed), the appellants provided no justified explanation for the delay between the expiry date and December 2022 filing. The court rejected arguments about misunderstanding the law, emphasizing that once the statutory limitation expires, the award holder acquires a vested right that cannot be "light heartedly disturbed" without genuine sufficient cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case