$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 11.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 17.03.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 108/2025 & I.A. 5843/2025 (Stay)

UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC.

versus M/S NJR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Mr.

Hunny Singh and Mr. Ankit Parindiyal, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, seeks to assail the Arbitral Award dated 13.01.2021 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the case titled “M/S N.J.R. Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India”.

2. The Petition is accompanied by two applications, being I.A. 5846/2025, Re-filing delay Application seeking condonation of the delay of 585 days in re-filing the present Petition, while I.A. 5844/2025, Delay Application has been filed seeking condonation of the delay of 168 days in filing the Petition.

3. At the very outset, before this Court adverts to the merits, it is necessary to first adjudicate the accompanying applications seeking the condonation of delay in filing as well as re-filing of the Petition. Needless to say, the consideration of the merits of the Petition is contingent upon the outcome of these two applications.

I.A. 5844/2025 (DELAY OF 168 DAYS IN FILING THE PETITION) & I.A. 5846/2025 (DELAY OF 585 DAYS IN RE-

FILING THE PETITION)

4. At this stage, the Court is only concerned with the adjudication of the present applications. In view thereof, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to enter into a detailed examination of the factual matrix of the case. Accordingly, the Court refrains from delving into the underlying facts and confines its consideration solely to the issues that arise for determination in the present applications.

Submissions on behalf of the parties:

5. Based upon the aforesaid applications, the learned counsel for the Respondent would raise a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present Petition, stating it to be heavily barred by limitation. He would submit that Petitioner herein has failed to explain the sufficiently long and inordinate delay for filing as well as re-filing the present Petition, which is far beyond any reasonable time. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent would further contend that the blanket exclusion of limitation granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in In re: Cognizance for extension of limitation (Suo Moto Writ Petition No.3 of 2020), Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, cannot be construed as permitting an indefinite extension of limitation. It would also be that the delay attributable to the Petitioner arises subsequent to the period of exclusion granted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, and thus, the Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the said orders, particularly in the absence of any cogent or plausible explanation for the delay.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, in support of the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing, would submit that the delay occurred due to certain administrative constraints.

8. It would further be contended that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the orders passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020 (supra), whereby the period of limitation was extended in view of the prevailing circumstances.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would also place reliance on the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act., and would reiterate the averments contained in the applications seeking condonation of delay. Insofar as the delay in re-filing is concerned, learned counsel for the Petitioner would also rely upon and reiterate the submissions set out in the concerned application seeking condonation of the delay in re-filing.

Analysis & Decision:

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, with th