In commercial and arbitral matters, courts must adopt a rigorous approach to limitation. Administrative lethargy and bureaucratic delays are insufficient grounds to condone failure to file or refile appeals within the statutory timeframe, as prompt resolution is paramount.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

CM APPLs. 52265/2025 & 52266/2025 (for delay)

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent, who appears in person, on the aspect of delay in filing and refiling of the present FAO (COMM) 233/2025.

2. It is settled, by now, that in commercial matters, Courts have to be extremely strict while dealing with applications for condonation of delay. Moreover, the present case emanates from an arbitral award in which case the Court has to be additionally circumspect, keeping in mind the requirement of ensuring expeditious finality to arbitral proceedings.

3. We may reproduce, in this context, the following passages from Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd, (2021) 6 SCC 460:

“63. Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party's inaction, negligence or laches.”

The principle that high value commercial disputes are required to be speedily resolved and that, therefore, Courts have to be circumspect in condoning delay, was also reiterated in Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam v. BHEL ,2025 SCC OnLine SC 910.

4. Additionally, the Supreme Court has, in Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board ,2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969, held that administrative lethargy and laxity by State instrumentalities and public functionaries cannot be ignored by Courts while considering applications for condonation of delay.

5. We have, therefore, examined this matter keeping in mind this perspective.

6. This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 16 July 2024 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-02) North-West District Rohini Courts, “learned Commercial Court”, in OMP (Comm) 77/2023, preferred by the respondent under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996,“the 1996 Act”, hereinafter.

7. The learned Commercial Court has, by the said decision, rejected the objection to the arbitral award and upheld the award in its entirety. The Section 34 petition of the appellant was, therefore, dismissed.

8. The time for filing the appeal against the aforesaid decision, under Section 37 of the 1996 Act expired on 14 September 2024. The appeal, however, came to be filed on 23 November 2024. Thereafter, it was taken back with objections on 28 November 2024 and refiled on 20 August 2025.

9. Two periods of delay, therefore, are to be explained. The first is that the delay between 14 September 2024 to 23 November 2024, which would constitute delay in filing the appeal. The second is the period between 28 November 2024 to 20 August 2025, which constitutes the delay in refiling the appeal.

10. The appellant has filed CM APPL. 52265/2025 for condonation of the former and CM APPL. 52266/2025 for condonation of the latter period of delay.

11. Insofar as the delay in filing is concerned, the explanation, tendered in the application, read