$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 258/2025 & CM APPL. 59958/2025CM APPL. 59959/2025 CM APPL. 59960/2025, CM APPL. 59961/2025 UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant Through: Mr. P.S. Singh CGSC, Mr. Ashutosh Bharti, Ms. Minakshi Singh, Mr. Rajneesh K. Sharma and Ms.

Shivangi Sharma, Advocates versus MR. MOHAN LAL WADHWA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Bipin Kr. Prabhat, Advocate and Mr. Kislaya Prabhat, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 14.01.2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “Arbitration Act”) assailing the orders dated 20.04.2024 and 15.10.2024 passed by learned DJ-1, New District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.

2. Vide the aforesaid orders, the Objection Petition filed by Appellant under section 34 of Arbitration Act came to be dismissed on 20.04.2024. Subsequently, the appellants moved an application for restoration of the said petition under Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2024 on account of non-prosecution.

3. The appellant thereafter, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court, which was dismissed on 25.07.2025, while granting liberty to the appellants to avail the remedy under Section 37 of the Act, culminating in the present appeal after a delay of 404 days.

4. Briefly put, the facts of the present case, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, as culled out from the records, are that a contract was executed between the appellant and the respondent, no. 1 pertaining to the construction of an Electric Sub-Station, AC Plant and Generator Room at Palam, New Delhi. During execution of the work, disputes arose inter alia on account of alleged delays attributable to the respondent, non-availability of drawings and materials, escalation in costs, and prolongation of the contract period. Arbitration proceedings commenced and an arbitral award dated 30.12.2009 was passed in favour of the respondent, awarding approximately Rs.15,03,197.66/- with interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submits that the delay in question inadvertently occurred on account of unavoidable procedural delays, caused by the negligence of the counsels to appear before the concerned court on the scheduled dates as well as lack of proper communication inter se between them and the appellants with respect to the status of the proceedings. It is further submitted that the impugned order failed to appreciate the larger public interest and substantial questions of law involved in the present arbitral award, which merits a thorough review, instead of being forestalled by procedural bottlenecks such as limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, supports the impugned order, and contends that the appellant had sought repeated adjournments before the concerned Court and also failed in paying the cost imposed on them vide order dated 16.09.2023. It is further submitted that there has been an inordinate delay of 404 days in preferring the present appeal, which is far beyond the prescribed limitation period, and thus, the delay should not be condoned.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Before adverting to the merits of the present appeal, this Court finds it relevant to briefly recapitulate the appellant‟s conduct qua prosecution of the prior proceedings that have led to filing of this appeal. In this regard, it is noted that the course of proceedings on the objection petition of the appellant, from 2017 to 2023, was admittedly marked by repeated non- appearances on behalf of the appellant, occasioned either due to non- appearance of the counsel engaged by the appellant, or due to a change of advocates, or ineffective communication between the advocates concerned and the appellant.