JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J.:—At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on November, 7, 1977 we had passed the operative part of the order stating that a reasoned judgment would follow. We now proceed to give the reasons.

2. This appeal is by special leave against the judgment and order dated 7th February, 1977 in Suit No. 574-A of 1976 by a single Judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby he dismissed the appellants petition for condonation of delay in filing the objection for setting aside the arbitration award given by respondents 2 and 3.

3. A contract was entered into between the petitioner - Indian Statistical Institute - and the first respondent - Associated Builders in respect of the work for construction of Indian Statistical Institute Campus at Hauz Khas, New Delhi. The contract provided for arbitration for settling any dispute that may arise between the parties. A dispute arose and the matter was referred to respondents 2 and 3 who gave an award on 23rd July, 1976. On 6th August, 1976 the first respondent filed a petition under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act in Delhi High Court calling upon respondents 2 and 3 to submit the award and records of the arbitration proceedings to the Court. On 27th August, 1976 the arbitrators filed the award in the Court. The appellant was served with a notice on 31st August, 1976 calling upon him to submit the objection for setting aside the award within one month from the date of the service of the notice. The objection for setting aside the award was filed in the High Court on 29th September, 1976 within the period of limitation. But as the objection petition was defective, in that the necessary stamps were not affixed and the date of the verification of the petition was not entered, the memorandum of objection was returned on 12th October, 1976 for rectifying the defects. When the matter was taken up by the Deputy Registrar on 25th October, 1976, Shri D. P. Mukherjee, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant made a submission that the appellant wanted to change their Advocate and that it may be given some more time for filing the objections. On 10th November, 1976 two applications were filed by the appellant (I. A. No. 25522 of 1976) under cl. (4) of Chap. V of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules for determination of authority of Shri B. Singh to act as Advocate on his behalf and another out of which the present appeal arises for condonation of the delay and for extension of time for filing objections for setting aside the award. The petition for determination of authority of Shri B. Singh to act as Advocate was ordered and we are not concerned with that in this appeal.

4. The plea for condonation of delay and for the extension of time for filing the objection for setting aside the award was on the ground that the appellant was unable to file the petition as its Advocate Shri B. Singh exerted illegal and unethical pressure and wanted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- unjustifiably. The correspondence between the appellant and the Advocate Shri B. Singh which is relied on for proving the obstructive attitude of the learned counsel for the appellant, which resulted in the delay, may be referred to. Soon after the award was passed before the receipt of the notice on 31-8-1976 the appellant wrote a letter to Shri B. Singh, Advocate, on 21st August, 1976 informing him that the arbitrators have filed their award on 23rd July, 1976 and as per the award the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,04,510.33 p. to the respondents. Stating that the appellants have decided to challenge the award, the counsel was requested to draft and file the objections within the time allowed for filing the objections. The appellant also informed Shri B. Singh that their Law Officer would be available for discussion in this case and for preparing objection petition in regard to the award. The letter further stated that on the basis of the schedule of fees and the discussions Shri B. Singh had with Shri Pandalal