JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

CM APPL.23535/2022

1. An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for condonation of delay of 76 days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. It is submitted in the application that the learned Counsel for the appellant on receiving the copy of the impugned judgment dated 13.09.2019, had sought clarifications from the appellant and thereafter had prepared the draft of Appeal which was forwarded to the appellant for necessary corrections. The learned Counsel finalised the Appeal and filed the same before this Court, but there was a delay of 76 days.

3. It has been explained that the Appeal was first filed in the Registry, Delhi High Court on 26.02.2020 vide Diary No.304052/2020. The file was returned with certain objections. The appellant removed the objections and re-filed the appeal, but again further objections were noted. In the mean while, on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic a complete lockdown was imposed in the country from March, 2020, which continued for a long time. The Registry of the Delhi High Court was not returning or accepting the hard copies of the cases and only e-filing was permissible during that period. The appellant made sincere efforts to determine the status of the Appeal, but was unable to get any concrete information. In was only in January, 2021 that the Registry returned the file of the aforesaid Appeal with certain objections. Again, because of lockdown in Delhi due to the second wave of COVID-19, the Registry could not take up the appeal. Thereafter, the file was found not traceable and the appellant was told to file the appeal afresh under the old diary number by indicating it as a re-filing.

4. The appellant re-filed it through e-filing vide diary No.562479 dated 12.08.2021, but certain objections were again noted on 13.08.2021 and on 29.08.2021. Eventually all the objections were removed and the appeal was accepted.

5. The appellant has stated that he suffered from Corona in the month of December, 2020 and remained admitted in the Hospital for many days. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant also suffered from COVID-19. In the second wave of pandemic, the counsel for the appellant was again admitted in the hospital due to COVID-19 and remained in ICU for 20 days. On recovery from COVID-19, he suffered a fracture in his leg and was confined for more than one and half months. It is submitted that for these various reasons there was a delay in refilling the present appeal. A prayer is made that the delay of 76 days in filing the appeal may be condoned.

6. Submissions heard.

7. The appellant has explained that the counsel for the appellant was unwell due to which he was unable to instruct his associates or finalise the appeal himself, which resulted in a delay of 76 days.

8. The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 does not prescribe the period of limitation for filing of Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The period of Limitation is 60 days as prescribed uniformly for all the Appeals including those that are preferred under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by virtue of Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as explained in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) through Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (2021) 6 SCC 460.

9. It has been explained that there was a delay of 76 days in preparation and of finalisation of the Appeal on account of health issues suffered by the counsel for the appellant. This was followed by the COVID-19 Pandemic which led to nationwide lockdown. The delay in filing the Appeal can to be condoned by way of an exception and not by way of a rule, in the light of the Objec