The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits for filing appeals and upheld the findings of the lower court regarding the challenge to the arbitral award.

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J. (Oral)--The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

1. CM APPL. 41080/2022 seeks condonation of delay of 66 days in re-filing the appeal. The impugned order is dated 08.12.2021, was corrected and released on 12.01.2022. As per the order dated 10.01.2022, in suo motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the Supreme Court has directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of calculating the period of limitation. Therefore, the period of limitation would start from 01.03.2022.

2. In terms of Section 13(1)(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appeal would have to be preferred within 60 days from the date of judgment or order. The said provision of law reads as under:

"13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.-(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.

(1A) Any person aggrieved 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 Court 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:

Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).]"

3. Though 60 days expired on 29.04.2022, the appeal was filed on 28.05.2022. However, the filed appeal was not in order. It was subsequently re-filed on 15.09.2022. This period of delay is unexplained in the application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. As a consequence of this, the appeal too would be dismissed as not maintainable. Nevertheless, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that the matter be heard on merits.

4. This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, impugns the arbitral award dated 14.08.2020 awarding an amount of Rs.66,68,593/-, along with interest thereon. The claimant was appointed as Accredited Registrar for "IN and" BHARAT/IDN domain names beginning from 24.02.2014 and 09.09.2014 respectively. The appellant claims that the complaints have been received apropos misconduct and misrepresentation in violation and contrary to the agreements. The award was impunged under section 34 of the Act in OMP (COMM) No.562/2020. The challenge was dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.12.2021.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the arbitral award and the impugned order are erroneous, insofar as they have disregarded the government's policy apropos zero tolerance against malpractices. There can be no dispute that the said objective could be achieved only through a process which is fair and sound in law. Admittedly, the appellant had proceeded on the basis of some complaint received from anonymous or fictitious e-mail addresses. They were not able to contact the sender of the e-mails or the complainants. Instead they issued a show cause notice to the respondent in terms of the complaint. The substratum and basis of the complaint was never verified or established. All issues raised before the arbitral tribunal went against the appellant. The impugned order has reasoned in detail the issues raised and held as under:

12. Further, it is noted that during the course of arbitration, NIXI completely failed to sustain the allegations on the basis of which the termination was affected. The three complaints which formed the basis of the Show Cause Notice were not substantiated. The cross-examination of the witness clearly evidences this fact, relevant portion thereof is as