Antoine Arokianathan v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Antoine Arokianathan, S/o. Anthonisamy, No.3, First Cross Street, Sozhan Nagar, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry - 605 004.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

1. The Union of India Rep by Chief Secretary, Govt of Pondicherry, Office at Goubert Avenue, Beach Road, White Town, Puducherry - 605 001.

2. The Arbitrator cum District Collector Union Territory of Puducherry, Office at New Collectorate Building, Vazhudavoor Road, Pettaiyanchathiram, Puducherry - 605 009.

3. The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition cum Deputy Collector (Revenue) South South Car Street, Villianur, Puducherry.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order passed in IA No.1 of 2025 in unnumbered AOP No...2025 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry dated 16.10.2025.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.C.Vishwanth For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, Government Advocate for Pudhucherry

ORDER

Challenging the impugned Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in unnumbered AOP.No. 2025 the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The respondent has initiated Arbitration proceedings against the petitioner in AOP.No.40 of 2019 before the Arbitration Tribunal, Puducherry. In the Arbitration proceedings an award has been passed against the petitioner. Challenging the said award he had preferred an appeal. But there is a delay of 30 days. Therefore, he filed an application to condone the delay under section 34[3] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The above application has been dismissed stating that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable

to the Arbitration proceedings, particularly under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that immediately after passing of the award, he had filed an appeal through online on 26.03.2025. But due to online processing problem, the appeal has been filed before the Court on 12.06.2024. The delay is neither willful nor wanton and the same is due to online processing problem. The trial Court, without considering all these aspects had erroneously dismissed the application which requires interference.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that since Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the arbitration proceedings, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application, which needs no interference.

5. A perusal of the records reveals that on 26.03.2024, the petitioner had preferred an appeal through online. But the same was not processed and finally, it was filed on 12.06.2024. In the meanwhile, there is a delay of 30 days and to condone, the petitioner had filed an application and the same was

dismissed. Admittedly, the award was passed on 07.02.2024. Within 40 days, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner on 12.06.2024 through online. But due to some technical fault the appeal was not processed and the fault was not on the part of the petitioner and for fault on technical issues, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Hence, the Order of the trial Court has to be set aside.

6. According, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the Order of the trial Court passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in unnumber AOP. 2025, dated 16.10.2025 is set aside. No costs.

02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order vrc To The Principal District Judge, Puducherry.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

vrc 02-04-2026