$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 12.02.2026 + ARB.P. 275/2026, I.A. 3907/2026 (Ex.) & I.A. 3908/2026 (Delay of 2 years and 83 days in Re-filing the petition)

S.B TRANSPORT COMPANY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Mr. Chitresh Mittal and Ms. Vaishali Chaudhary, Advocates versus STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Nemo CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

I.A. 3908/2026 (Delay of 2 years and 83 days in Re-filing the petition)

1. The Objection Petition being ARB. P. 275/2026 [“present Petition”], filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks the appointment of Sole Arbitrator.

2. The Petitioner/Applicant, by way of an Application dated 17.12.2025 being I.A. 3908/2026 [“present Application”], seeks condonation of delay of 2 years and 83 days in re-filing the present Petition.

3. The present Petition was instituted on 05.05.2023, however, it never came to be listed since the objections raised with regards to the Signature Not Verified defects were never cured by the Petitioner. Subsequently, the present Application came to be filed only in December, 2025 seeking condonation of delay in re-filing. This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the entire Application:

“1. That the Applicant is the Petitioner in the above-captioned matter, which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court.

2. That the Petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The said petition was initially filed vide Diary No. 776983/2023 dated 18.05.2023.

3. That objections were raised by the Registry on 29.05.2023. Thereafter, this Hon'ble Court remained closed on account of summer vacations from 03 .06.2023 to 30.06.2023.

4. That from 01.07.2023 to 30.09.2023, the Petitioner Company did not have any authorised representative available in Delhi to take necessary steps for re-filing the petition. Consequently, the Director of the Company, Mr. Shamal Singh, was authorised to pursue the matter.

5. That unfortunately, during this period, the wife of Mr. Shamal Singh was diagnosed with cancer. Due to her serious medical condition and on medical advice, Mr. Shamal Singh was required to devote his time to her treatment and care, which resulted in an unavoidable delay for the period from 01.10.2023 to 31.08.2025 and after due to serious condition the wife of Mr. Sahamal Singh was passed away.

6. That thereafter, in September 2025, the counsel for the Petitioner was admitted to hospital due to typhoid and was unable to attend Court matters. He was discharged only after the Diwali vacations and was advised complete bed rest for a further period of fifteen (15) days.

7. That after the counsel's recovery, the Petitioner met with the counsel and necessary steps were taken for re-filing the present petition.

8. That due to the aforesaid bona fide, unavoidable, and compelling circumstances, a delay of 2 years and 79 days has occurred in re-

filing the petition after removal of Registry objections.

9. That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and has occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner. If the delay is not condoned, the Petitioner shall suffer grave and irreparable loss, whereas no prejudice shall be caused to the Respondent.

10.That the present application is being filed bona fide and in the interest of justice.”

Signature Not Verified

4. A perusal of the said present Application reveals that the reasons furnished therein are wholly bald, unsupported by any material, and bereft of documentary evidence. It indicates a lackadaisical approach of the Petitioners in curing the defects within the proper time frame, which is, under the prevalent Rules applicable, limited to a maximum time period of 30 days in aggregate after objections with respect to defects are raised.

5. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to empha