The Court held that the 60-day limitation for appeals under the Arbitration Act is strict and can only be extended in exceptional cases where sufficient cause is demonstrated, which was not established here.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR J.

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] read with Section 13(1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 [CC Act], inter alia, assailing the Order dated 04.02.2025 [Impugned Order] passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court), North-East District, Karkardooma Courts [District Judge], in OMP (COMM) 2/2023. By the Impugned Order, the Petition under section 34 of the A&C Act filed by the Respondent herein was allowed and the Arbitral Award dated 02.03.2023, passed in case No. ARB/RM/15 by the learned sole Arbitrator was set aside.

2. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the Appellant was posed with the question as to whether the present appeal is maintainable, considering that it appears to have been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

3. The aforesaid query arose on the basis of the averments contained in the application, accompanied with the appeal, seeking condonation of delay, which reads as follows:

“3. The appellant submit that the Impugned order was passed on 04.02.2025 and 60 days expired on 05.04.2025. Thereafter the appellant had applied for certified copy of order on 06.05.2025 in which the date of delivery was given as 14.05.2025 when again new date of delivery was given as 24.05.2025. However, the applicant had received the copy on 23.05.2025, hence date from 06.05.2025 to 23.05.2025 i.e., 18 days was taken by registry to provide certified copy and thereafter the vacation starts from 01.06.2025 to 30 June 2025 i.e. for 30 days. The total time taken for filing the present appeal was 147 days, out of which 60 days granted by Act 1996 for filing appeal, 18 days taken by Registry to supply certified copy and 30 days summer vacations period is to be deducted from the total time of 147 days i.e. 147-(60+18+30) = 39 days, i.e. there is delay in filing the present appeal after three months was only 9 days beyond three months in terms of period provided under Section 34 of Act and the same can be condoned under law.

4. It is further submitted that three months expires on 04.05.2025 and thereafter the appeal also can be filed within extended period of 30 days and the same shall expire on 03.06.2025, however, the summer vacation starts from 01.06.2025. the Period of 18 days also to be deducted from the period of 27 days i.e. after 04.05.2025 till 31.05.2025 and hence the total delay beyond three months was only 9 days and the same can be condoned in terms of Law.

5. It is further submitted that the delay was caused due to marriage of son of appellant on 15.04.2025 and therefore the appellant could not be able to file the present appeal in time.

6. It is only after the marriage of son of appellant, the appellant son had applied for copy of order dated 04.02.2025 from the Registry at Karkardooma courts and the same was received by him on 23.05.2025, though the copy was ready on 19.05.2025 as per date given on certified copy. However, the date of delivery on the receipt was extended from 14.05.2025 to 24.05.2025 and it is therefore only the certified copy was received on 23.05.2025

7. The delay is due to marriage of son of appellant and the same is within the extended period of 30 days beyond three months as per total time 120 days as provided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

8. That delay of total 87 days, however after deducting the period of 18 days towards registry and 30 days of summer vacation, there was a delay of 09 days beyond the period of 90 days but well within period of 120 days in filing the present accompanying appeal, which was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to sufficient reasons of marriage of son of appellant as stated above. No prejudice shall be caused to the respondent if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, however, the appellant would be prejudiced if the delay is not condoned.”

4. On a conjoint reading of the provisions of the CC Act and the Limitation Act,