Patna High Court
The Employees State Insurance … vs Life Line Hospital And Research Centre, … on 19 February, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Appeal No.594 of 2024
======================================================
The Employees State Insurance Corporation through the State Medical
Commissioner, Regional Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Patna- 800001.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Life Line Hospital and Research Centre, represented through Hemant Kumar,
S/o Sri Niranjan Prasad Singh, At Nipania Main Road, Ward No. 01, P.S.
Begusarai, Barauni, District- Begusarai, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
For the ESIC : Mr. Bipin Bihari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the
Employees State Insurance Corporation (henceforth for short
'the ESIC' and Mr. Bipin Bihari for the Lifeline Hospital and
Research Centre (for short 'the Hospital').
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for the quashing impugned order dated
12/03/2024
passed in Misc. (Arbitration)
Case No. 19/2022 whereby and wherein the
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)1″, Patna Ms.
Sarika Vahalia was pleased to reject the
petition filed under Section 34(2)/2(a) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to be
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
2/33
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure;
(ii) to set aside the Award dated 01.12.2021
passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, Sri
Bidhu Bhushan Pathak (former District and
Sessions Judge) in Arbitration Case no.
3/2021 by which the claim of the claimant/
opposite party/ respondent was allowed and
the respondent/ petitioner/ appellant has
been directed to pay the claim amount for
Rs. 79, 83, 169/- (seventy nine lacs eighty
three thousand one hundred sixty nine) along
with interest @ 07% p. a., from the date of
filing of the claim application till its
realization in case it is not paid within time
schedule i.e., 3 months from the date of
Award then the petitioner has to pay the
aforesaid claim amount with interest @9%
p. a., till the amount is paid apart from Rs.
75,000/-(seventy five thousand) was
awarded litigation cost, whereas, the total
Awarded amount comes to Rs. 80, 58, 169/-
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
3/33
(eighty lacs fifty eight thousand one hundred
sixty nine) which was inter alia challenged
by the respondent/ petitioner/ appellant on
the ground of gross error resulting into
patent illegality since the claim amount was
allowed with interest solely on the basis of
the amount which were disallowed in terms
of the Memorandum of Agreement (M.O.A)
dated 14.06.2017 by the respondent
petitioner/ appellant which was specifically
stated in the Counter Affidavit/statement of
defence/supplementary statement of defence,
whereas, it was not considered by the
learned Arbitrator as well as the learned
Court below apart from other valid grounds
raised therein resulting into gross injustice
committed by the court below.
(emphasis added)
3. The short story leading to the present case is/are
that both ‘the ESIC’ and ‘the Hospital entered into an agreement
on 14.06.2017 empanelling ‘the Hospital’ to provide
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary Medical care to the insured persons
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
4/33
on cashless basis.
4. Further, clause 35 of the memorandum of
agreement takes about the dispute or difference between the
parties to be referred to the Arbitrator.
5. As the story further unfolds, ‘the Hospital’
submitted the bills which was/were negated by ‘the ESIC’. This
followed the Request Case No. 41 of 2020 by ‘the Hospital’
before the Patna High Court. The then Hon’ble the Chief
Justice on 10.02.2021 after recording that ‘the ESIC’ failed to
appear in the matter, disposed it of appointing Mr. Bidhu
Bhushan Pathak as the sole Arbitrator where the parties were
directed to appear on 01.03.2021.
6. Accordingly, the parties appeared before the sole
Arbitrator. Thereafter, on 01.12.2021, the sole Arbitrator
allowed the claim of ‘the Hospital’ directing ‘the ESIC’ to pay
Rs. 79,83,169/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of filing of
the claim petition till its realization. The amount calculated was
recorded as Rs. 80,58,169/-.
7. The relevant part of the Award dated 01.12.2021 is
recorded hereinbelow:
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
5/33AWARD
“This Arbitration Case No 03/2021,
arising out of Request Case No 41/2020,
stands allowed to the extent that
Employee’s State Insurance Corporation
(ESIC) is directed to pay the claim amount
for Rs. 79.83.169/- (Seventy Nine Lac.
Eighty three Thousand, One Hundred Sixty
Nine) along with interest @ 07% p.a., from
the date of filing of the claim application as
well as till its realization. In case, it is not
paid within time schedule i.e. 3 months
from the date of Award then the Employee’s
State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) has to
pay the entire claim amount as indicated
above with interest a 9% pa. till the amount
is paid and claimant shall also be entitled
to recover the amount due under the due
process of law. There shall not be cost
payable to the advocate rather Advocate
fee shall be paid by their respective party
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
6/33
but litigation cost Rs 75.000/- (Seventy
Five thousand) is also awarded as a
litigation cost which shall also be the part
of award.
Accordingly total Award amount comes to
Rs.80.58.169/-(Eight Lacs Fifty Eight
thousand One hundred Sixty Nine), payable
by respondent (Employee’s State Insurance
Corporation to the claimant (Life line
Hospital and Research Center) in view of
the terms as mentioned here above.
(BIDHU BHUSHAN PATHAK)
SOLE ARBITRATOR
(emphasis added)
8. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Civil
Court, Patna in Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 19 of
2022 (Employees State Insurance Corporation through State
Medical Commissioner vs. Life Line Hospital and Research
Centre). It was taken up by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Division) 1st, Patna and vide reasoned order 12.03.2024, the
aforesaid case was dismissed. The learned Judge gave her
findings which reads as follows:
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
7/33“For the determination of this case I
have perused the entire case record
and specially award of dated 1”
December 2021 passed by the
arbitrators. The petitioner has raised
objection u/s 34 of (v) Arbitration.
That Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is a recourse
which provides that an application
under section 34 be necessary
preferred for setting aside such award
in accordance with sub-section(2) and
sub-section (3). The Sub-section (2)
and sub-section (3) are hereby
reproduced for the perusal as under
Sub- section (2) – An arbitral award
may be set aside by the Court only if-
(a)The party making the application
establishes on the basis of the record
of the arbitral tribunal that (i) a party
was under some incapacity; or
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
8/33valid under the law to which the
parties have subjected it or, failing
any indication thereon, under the law
for the time being in force; or
(iii) the party making the application
was not given proper notice of the
appointment of an arbitrator or of the
arbitral proceedings or was unable to
present his case; or
(iv) the arbitral award deals with a
dispute not contemplated by or not
falling within the terms of the
submission to arbitration, or it
contains decisions on matters beyond
the scope of the submission to
arbitration:
Provided that, if the decisions on
matters submitted to arbitration can
be separated from those not so
submitted, only that part of the award
which contains decisions on matters
not submitted to arbitration may be
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
9/33set aside; or
(v) the composition of the arbitral
tribunal or the arbitral procedure was
not in accordance with the agreement
of the parties, unless such agreement
was in conflict with a provision of this
part from which the parties cannot,
derogate, or failing such agreement
was not in accordance with this part;
or
(b) the Court finds that –
the subject-matter of the dispute is not
capable of settlement by arbitration
under the law for the time being in
force, other arbitral award is in
conflict with the public policy of
India.
Explanation 1. For the avoidance of
any doubt, it is clarified that an award
is in conflict with the public policy of
India, only if (i) the making of the
award was induced or affected by
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
10/33
fraud or corruption or was in
violation of section 75 or sec 81; or
3. it is in contravention with the
fundamental policy of Indian law; or
4. it is in conflict with the most basic
notions of morality or justice
Explanation 2.. For the avoidance of
doubt, the test as to whether there is a
contravention with the fundamental
policy of Indian law shall not entail a
review on the merits of the dispute.
(2- A) An arbitral award arising out of
arbitration other than international
commercial arbitrations may also be
set aside by the Court, if the Court
finds that the award is vitiated by
patent illegality appearing on the face
of the award:
Provided that an award shall not be
set aside merely on the ground of an
erroneous application of the law or by
re-appreciation of evidence.
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
11/33That from the bare perusal of
section-34 and its subsection-2 and
2A, It is evident that section 34 and
its sub-section- 2 & 2-A confines the
ground for making an application
under this section and only those
application which constitutes the
ground as stipulated under Section
34 and its sub-section 2 & 2-4 are
maintainable and can be entertained
by this leaned Court. To sum up,
According to this Section 34, an
award can be Challenged only under
the grounds mentioned in section-34
(2) and no such ground as mentioned
in section-34 (2) and (2-A) has been
raised by this. Petitioner and hence
the instant application filed under
section-34 (2) and (2-A) by this
Petitioner lacks merit and fit to be
dismissed outright the ground, taken
by the petitioner under heading
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
12/33GROUND, at para (1) to (xxvi), is
nothing but a prayer for the re-
examination of evidences which is
not permissible under section-34 sub-
section-2A which bars re-
appreciation of evidences Further
this petitioner has taken erroneous
application of the law while passing
award, as a ground, for setting aside
the award, which is also not
permissible under section-34 sub-
section-2A of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act.1906 which bars
setting aside the award on ground of
erroneous application of law. The
validity of the arbitration agreement
is not in dispute in the instant
application of the petitioner. It is also
not in dispute that the Petitioner was
not under some incapacity. It is also
admitted fact that the Petitioner was
properly informed by the learned
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
13/33
Arbitrator about the arbitral
(proceeding and accordingly the
petitioner duly presented its case
before the Learned Sole Arbitrator. It
is also not in dispute that the arbitral
proceeding was in accordance with
the agreement of the parties and the
appointment of sole arbitrator was as
per the agreement of the parties. It is
also not in dispute that the dispute
was capable of settlement by
arbitration under the law for the time
being in force and the arbitral award
is not in conflict with the public
policy of India. The
Petitioner/Respondent has not
claimed that the making of the award
was induced or affected by fraud or
corruption or the making of award is
in violation of section 75 or section
81 of the Arbitration and conciliation
Act, 1996. Further the
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
14/33
Petitioner/Respondent has not
brought any material facts on record
for establishing that the arbitral
award is in contravention with the
public policy of Indian law or is in
conflict with the most basic notion of
morality or justice. It is also evident
from the bare perusal of the instant
application under reply that the
Petitioner/Respondent has not
challenged the arbitral award on
account of award suffering from
patent illegality and hence under the
circumstances as indicated herein,
the instant application of the
Petitioner/Respondent, does not
substantiate any ground as stipulated
under section-34 (2) and (2-A) of the
Arbitration and conciliation Act,
1996, for challenging the arbitral
award, passed on 01-12-2021, by the
learned sole arbitrator Shree Bidhu
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
15/33
Bhushan Pathak (Former District &
session Judge) in arbitration case no.
03/2021 and hence the instant
application of the
Petitioner/Respondent lacks merit
and fit to be dismissed outright That
from the bare perusal of the instant
application of the
Petitioner/Respondent it is evident
that the petitioner has sought relief
on account of re-examination of
evidences which is not permissible
under section-34 (2-A)
(emphasis added)
That the Hon’ble Apex Court by its
order dated 09-09-2021 in the matter
EXPRESS PVT. LTD Vs DELHI
METRO RAIL CORPORATION
LIMITED reported in, (2022) 1
Supreme Court Gases 131. has very-
lucidly held at para-26 that “Section-
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
16/33
5 and Section-34 of the 1996 Act
would make. it clear that judicial
interference with the arbitral award is
limited to the grounds in section 34.
While deciding application filed under
section 34 of the Act, Courts are
mandated to strictly act in accordance
with and within the confines of section
34, refraining from appreciation or re-
appreciation of matters of fact as well
as law.” The Hon’ble Apex Court
further very lucidly held at para- 29
that “Patent illegality should be
illegality which goes to the root of the
matter. In other words, every error of
law committed by the Arbitral tribunal
would not fall within the expression”
patent illegality”. Likewise, erroneous
application of law can not be
categorized as patent illegality. In
addition, contravention of law not
linked to public policy or public
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
17/33interest is beyond the scope of the
expression “patent illegality”. What is
prohibited is for courts to re-
appreciate evidence to conclude that
the award suffers from patent
illegality appearing on the face of the
award, as Courts do not sit in appeal
against the arbitral award…”
Upon above mentioned facts and
circumstance, after hearing of both
side counsels and perusal of entire
case record this court rejects the
petition of applicant u/s 34 of
Arbitration Act. This court is not
inclined to effect the award as it stand
as it is. The case is disposed off
accordingly.
Civil Judge (Sr. Div) 1″ Patna Sadar
12.03.2024.
(emphasis added)
9. The learned Civil Judge vide a reasoned order
dated 12.03.2024 came to the conclusion that the appellant do
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
18/33
not successfully cross the Section 34(2) & 2-A bar of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth for short
‘the Act’) while rejecting the claim of the appellant. While
doing so, it also took note of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s
observation that the courts are prohibited from re-appreciating
the evidence to conclude that the awards suffer from patent
illegality appearing on the face of the award, as Courts do not sit
in appeal against the arbitral award.
10. Being aggrieved with the said order dated
12.03.2024, the present appeal by ‘the ESIC’.
11. It is to be noted that the order was passed on
12.03.2024 and the appeal was filed on 19.08.2024. The office
has pointed out that the limitation came to an end on 21.06.2024
and since the petition has been filed on 19.08.2024, there has
been delay of 59 days in filing the appeal. In that background,
this Court deems it appropriate to take up the I.A. No. 02 2025
first filed by the appellant for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal.
I.A. No. 02 of 2025:
12. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application has
been preferred for condoning the delay of 59 days in filing of
the Miscellaneous Appeal. The reason has been given that on
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
19/3312.03.2024, the order came to be passed in the Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous (Arbitration) Case No. 19 of 2022 whereafter,
the file was allotted to the Panel Counsel, Mr. Ravi Kumar
during annual vacation. However, the learned counsel was out
of station and as such the delay occurred.
13. The content of the Interlocutory Application
no. 02 of 2025 is incorporated hereinbelow:
“that the instant petition is being filed to
condone the delay of 59 days in filing the
Miscellaneous Appeal referred above on
the ground that the conducting panel
Counsel Mr. Ravi Kumar was out of
station during annual vacation starting
from 20/05/2024 and partly due to want
of necessary documents required during
the course of drafting of the memo of
Appeal resulting into delay of 30 days
occurred for filing the Appeal after the
opening day, 19.06.2024 which is prayed
to be condoned in the interest of justice.
19/6/24;
2. that the appellant has not preferred
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
20/33any petition earlier to this petition
involving the same relief;
3. that it is respectfully being submitted
that the instant Appeal, in which this
petition is arising, has been preferred
against impugned order dated
12/03/2024 passed in in Misc.
(Arbitration) Case No. 19/2022 whereas,
the case file was allotted during annual
vacation of the Hon’ble High Court,
Patna, to the panel Counsel Mr. Ravi
Kumar, however, he was out of station
during vacation and after his arrival
during the course of drafting of the
appeal, due to want of some necessary
documents relating to the case, as a
result of which delay occurred in
preferring the appeal against the
impugned order as computation of
limitation (90 days) was made from the
date of last order (12/03/2024) which has
been annexed as part of the impugned
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
21/33order in the appeal whereas, the delay
occurred in filing the Appeal due to the
circumstances which were beyond the
control of the appellants, hence the
delay may be condoned to meet the end
of Justice;
4. that in the light of the submissions
made above, the delay in preferring the
Appeal may kindly be condoned in the
facts and circumstances of the case;
It is therefore prayed that your Lordships
be graciously Pleased to admit this
petition and after hearing the parties be
pleased to allow the petition and
condone the delay in the interest of
justice.
14. This Court has taken note of the fact that the
order in question was passed on 12.03.2024. Patna High Court
remained functional for the next ten weeks and summer
vacation started only on 20.05.2024 (18th May and 19th May
being Saturday and Sunday respectively). Thus, between
12.03.2024 till 20.05.2024 though the High Court remained
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
22/33functional, ‘the ESIC’ has not stated a single word on the steps
it took for filing the appeal.
15. Further, the High Court reopened after the
summer vacation on 19th of June, 2024 and the appeal came to
be filed ten weeks thereafter on 19.08.2024. Again, the details
which could give sufficient cause for the delay in filing the
appeal is missing.
16. The contents of the Interlocutory Application
makes it clear that vague ground has been taken. No sufficient
cause for the delayed filing appeal is clearly missing.
17. Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that ‘the ESIC’ is an Insurance Corporation/
an organization where the decisions taking process takes time
and as such, it cannot be equated with an individual inasmuch
as the file moves from one place to the another and in that
background, the delay of 59 days (after the lapse of 90 days) in
filing the appeal has to be ignored and the limitation petition is
fit to be allowed.
18. ‘The Hospital’ is represented through Mr. Bipin
Bihari and with the help of the counter affidavit, learned
counsel submits that whether it is a private individual or a
Company/State of Government and/or the Insurance
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
23/33Corporation, all have to abide with the law mandated in filing
the appeal and when sufficient cause has not been given in the
petition for condoning the delay, the same has to be rejected.
19. Paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit read as
follows:
4. That it is respectfully submitted
that the present appeal has been filed
under Section 37 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The applicable limitation for such an
appeal is governed by Section 13 (1)
of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The relevant provisions state: Section
13(1): “Any person aggrieved by the
judgment or order of a Commercial
Court below the level of a District
Judge may appeal to the Commercial
Appellate Court within a period of
sixty days from the date of judgment
or order.”
Section 13(1A): “Any person
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
24/33aggrieved by the judgment or order
of a Commercial Court at the level of
District Judge exercising original
civil jurisdiction or, as the case may
be, Commercial Division of a High
Coun may appeal to the Commercial
Appellate Division of that High
Court within a period of sixty days
from the date of the judgment or
order…”. It is further clarified that
such appeals lie only from orders
enumerated under Order XLIII of the
Code of Civil Procedure or Section
37 of the Arbitration Act). In the
present case, the impugned order
was passed on 12-03-2024 but the
appeal was filed on 19-08-2024 after
an inordinate delay of 90 days
beyond the prescribed limitation
period of 60 days.
20. In support of his contention, learned counsel for
‘the Hospital’ has taken this Court to an order of the Hon’ble
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
25/33Apex Court in the case of Government of Maharastra (Water
Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer
vs. M/s Boarse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
in Civil Appeal No. 995 of 2021(@SLP (Civil) No.665 of
2021) with reference to paragraph 57 which read as follows:
57. Likewise, merely because the
government is involved, a different
yardstick for condonation of delay
cannot be laid down. This was
felicitously stated in Postmaster
General v. Living Media India Ltd.,
(2012) 3 SCC 563 [Postmaster
General”], as follows:
“27. It is not in dispute that the
person(s) concerned were well aware
or conversant with the issues involved
including the prescribed period of
limitation for taking up the matter by
way of filing a special leave petition in
this Court. They cannot claim that they
have a separate period of limitation
when the Department was possessed
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
26/33with competent persons familiar with
court proceedings. In the absence of
plausible and acceptable explanation,
we are posing a question why the delay
is to be condoned mechanically merely
because the Government or a wing of
the Government is a party before us.
28. Though we are conscious of the
fact that in a matter of condonation of
delay when there was no gross
negligence or deliberate inaction or
lack of bona fides, a liberal concession
has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view
that in the facts and circumstances, the
Department cannot take advantage of
various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery. and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of
making several notes cannot be
accepted in view of the modern
technologies being used and available.
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
27/33The law of limitation undoubtedly
binds everybody, including the
Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to
inform all the government bodies, their
agencies and instrumentality that
unless they have reasonable and
acceptable explanation for the delay
and there was bona fide effort, there is
no need to accept the usual explanation
that the file was kept pending for
several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red
tape in the process. The government
departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform
their duties with diligence and
commitment. Condonation of delay is
an exception and should not be used as
an anticipated benefit for the
government departments. The law
shelters everyone under the same light
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
28/33and should not be swirled for the
benefit of a few.”
(emphasis added)
21. Further paragraph-61 of the Hon’ble Apex Court
order read as follows:
61. Given the aforesaid and the
object of speedy disposal sought
to be achieved both under the
Commercial Courts Act, for
appeals filed under section 37 of
the Arbitration Act that are
governed by Articles 116 and 117
of the Limitation Act or section
13(1A) of the Commercial Courts
Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30
days or 60 days, respectively, is to
be condoned by way of exception
and not by way of rule. In a fit
case in which a party has
otherwise acted bona fide and not
in a negligent manner, a short
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
29/33delay beyond such period can, in
the discretion of the court, be
condoned, always bearing in mind
that the other side of the picture is
that the opposite party may have
acquired both in equity and
justice, what may now be lost by
the first party’s inaction,
negligence or laches.
22. Learned counsel concludes by submitting that in
the aforesaid circumstances, both the I.A. as also the appeal
have to be dismissed.
23. This Court has gone through the facts of the
case, the submissions of the parties as also the judgment
provided by the learned counsel representing the sole
respondent. The Court is in full confirmity with the submissions
put forward by the sole respondent.
24. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read as
under:
5. Extension of prescribed period in
certain cases— Any appeal or any
application, other than an
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
30/33application under any of the
provisions of Order XXI of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),
may be admitted after the prescribed
period, if the appellant or the
applicant satisfies the Court that he
had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the
application within such period
Explanation. The fact that the
appellant or the applicant was
misled by any order, practice or
judgment of the High Court in
ascertaining or computing the
prescribed period may be sufficient
cause within the meaning of this
section.
25. Admittedly, the case was contested before the
learned Civil Judge, Patna whereafter the order was delivered on
12.03.2024. The appellant/’the ESIC’ had complete knowledge
of the order dated 12.03.2024.
26.The ordersheet shows that the requisites for the
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
31/33
certified copy of the order dated 12.03.2024 was filed on
23.03.2024 and the ordersheet was presented on 02.04.2024.
Nothing has been recorded in the Interlocutory Application/no
cause has been given on the delay in handing over the file
during the Summer Vacation.
27. It clearly shows that a vague alibi has been
taken that the delay occurred in filing the appeal due to the
circumstances which were beyond control of the applicants.
28. This Court has already recorded the contents of
the limitation petition which clearly shows how casually it has
been drafted and filed inasmuch as the details from the date of
the passing of the order (12.03.2024) till the filing of the
appeal (19.08.2024) has not been narrated to show that genuine
efforts were taken by ‘the ESIC’ but the circumstances beyond
control led to the delay in filing the appeal.
29. Those sitting in the office and matters in such
cases merely complete the formality of filing an appeal without
any accountability and fully knowing its fate. This Court is
further guided by the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Government of Maharastra (supra) case wherein the
Supreme Court clearly recorded that merely because the
Government is a litigant, different yardstick for condonation of
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
32/33
delay cannot be carried out.
30. Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay must be
there and further it must be showed that bonafide effort was
taken otherwise, there is no need to accept this casual
explanation that the file was kept pending. Here the Court has
taken note of the fact that the file was allotted to the panel
counsel during the summer vacation, the learned counsel
returned after some time and filed the appeal.
31. This Court wonders whether ‘the ESIC’ was
genuinely interested in challenging the order of the learned
Single Judge. Whatever may be the reason, the explanation put
forward in the Interlocutory Application No.02 of 2025 for
condoning the delay is not convincing and as such, has to be
rejected.
32. I.A. No. 02 of 2024 is dismissed.
M.A. No. 594 of 2024
33. This Court has recorded the facts of the order
dated 01.12.2021 passed by the sole Arbitrator as also the
reasoned order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Patna in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 19 of 2002.
Learned Civil Judge has given valid and cogent reason for not
Patna High Court MA No.594 of 2024 dt.19-02-2026
33/33
interfering with the order passed by the sole Arbitrator.
However, in view of the fact that the delay in filing the appeal
has not been condoned and the I.A. No. 02 of 2025 has been
dismissed, in that background, M.A. No. 594 of 2024 is also
dismissed.
34. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stand
dismissed.
35. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for Ms. Sarika Vahalia, learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division) 1st, Patna for penning down a
reasoned and speaking order.
36. Let a copy of the order be sent to the learned
Principal & District Judge, Patna for handing it over to the
concerned judge.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 23.02.2026 Transmission Date
