The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the legislative policy of expeditious disposal of arbitration proceedings, the statutory limitations provided in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the need to curb misuse of delay in arbitration proceedings.

1. By this Notice of Motion the Petitioner prays that delay of 382 days in taking out the Notice of Motion for restoration of Petition which was dismissed on 30 October 2012 for non-compliance of office objections, be condoned and the petition be restored to file.

2. Affidavit has been filed initially by the concerned Advocate and it has been ratified by the Applicant subsequently. When an Advocate files an affidavit placing on record that there was some difficulty because of which matter went unattended, normally this Court would not take a harsh view of the matter and restore the petition so that it can be heard on merits. However, the discretion of the Court has to be used in facts and circumstances of each case and keeping in mind the nature of the proceedings. These are arbitration proceedings. The legislature has provided specific non extendable limitation for challenging the award. Underlying legislative policy being expeditious disposal of the arbitration proceedings. The legislature has provided that the petition has to be filed within period of 90 days and if the Court so permits within 30 days after the expiry of 90 days. Thereafter even the Court is powerless to condone the delay. The legislature has provided for such stringent limitation for a specific purpose. This purpose cannot be lost sight of when request for condonation of delay is made in proceedings such as the present one. If unwarranted indulgence is shown to a party it will be against the policy of providing stringent time schedule. It is in the background of this position in law that facts of the present case need to be considered.

3. The award was passed on 13 March 2012. The Applicant participated in the arbitration proceedings and was fully aware of the arbitration award. The copy of the award was received on 14 March 2012. The period of 90 days expired on 14 June 2012 and the present petition came to be filed on 21 June 2012 i.e. beyond the period of 90 days by seven days. Thus, the Applicant did not file the petition within period of 90 days and condonation of further delay of 7 days was within the discretion of this Court.

4. The petition was thereafter placed before the Prothonotary and Senior Master for removal of objections on 30 October 2012. None attended the Petition and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The present notice of Motion for restoration was taken out on 16 November 2013 i.e. after more than one year. The Advocate has filed an affidavit giving reason that on 30 October 2012, grandfather of the Advocate was hospitalised at the native place and therefore, he could not attend the proceedings. Then there is no explanation for the next year or so. It is stated that when he inquired on 13 November 2013, he found that the petition was dismissed on 30 October 2013. It is the only reason given in the affidavit in support. The Applicant has filed an affidavit ratifying what is stated by the Advocate, since an objection was taken by the Respondent that no affidavit has been filed by the Applicant. The learned counsel for the Respondent has contended that the excuse given in the affidavit is completely unjustifiable and everyone concerned has been absolutely negligent in prosecuting the petition.

5. The affidavit filed by the applicant gives explanation for one date i.e. on 30 October 2012, when the petition was dismissed before the Prothonotary that for some personal reasons the Advocate could not remain present. Assuming this is a valid reason, there is no explanation at all for the delay of 382 days thereafter. It cannot be that the Advocate was at his native place for 382 days and it is not even the case.

6. What about the conduct of the Applicant himself. Where was the Applicant since the award was passed. Is it not his duty to see that challenge to award is prosecuted diligently. Should he not be worried that the petition was not even admitted when the award was passed one and half years back. Is it not expected of a litigant t