$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 27^th March, 2026 Pronounced on: 07th April, 2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 367/2019 & I.A. 12495/2019, I.A. 12496/2019 MS. STALAGMITE INFRACON PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sundeep Sehgal, Adv.

Mob: 9810005572 Email: infilegal@gmail.com versus MS. ASHRAY HOMES BUILD WELL PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manu Aggarwal and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advs.

Mob: 9810007854 Email: manu@lawoffices.com CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

JUDGEMENT

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

I.A. 12495/2019 & I.A. 12496/2019

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking to set aside the impugned interim Arbitral Award dated 28^th January, 2019, to the extent of findings therein which are against the petitioner.

2. I.A. 12495/2019 has been filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 30 days in filing the present petition, and I.A. 12496/2019 has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 90 days in re-filing the present petition.

3. The disputes between the parties herein had arisen in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 12^th March, 2015 (“MoU”), which was entered into for construction of 288 residential units at Shubh Ashray Bhiwadi at Village Ishroda, Tehsil Tijara, Rajasthan.

4. In view of the several disputes between the parties, in terms of Clause 33 of the MoU containing an arbitration clause, the parties proceeded with arbitration, wherein, the petitioner herein was the Claimant.

5. The impugned interim Award dated 28^th January, 2019 came to be passed, by way of which the learned Arbitrator partly allowed the claims of the petitioner, along with the Counter Claims of the respondent, awarding an amount of Rs. 6,31,674/- with 9 % simple interest per annum, in favor of the petitioner.

6. Thus, the present petition has been filed challenging the findings of the learned Arbitrator, to the extent of denial of claims of the petitioner, on the ground that the impugned Award is perverse, illegal and in contravention to the agreed terms of contract between the parties.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a delay of 30 days in initial filing of the petition, on the grounds that the Arbitrator had suo motu divided the claims into two parts, i.e., Claims 2 to 18 and Claim 1. Since the impugned interim Award was passed only in respect of Claims 2 to 18, the petitioner was waiting for the Award to be passed qua the other part also. Thus, due to no fault of the petitioner, there was a delay of 30 days in the initial filing of the present petition.

8. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that there was a delay of 90 days in re-filing the petition, on the ground that the petitioner had been removing defects from the bulky documents, within seven days of the same being raised by the Registry, which took a substantial period of time, therefore, there was a delay of 90 days in re-filing of the present petition.

9. Per Contra, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner had acted with utter lack of due diligence in removal of defects, and several of the defects did not have anything to do with there being any bulky documents, and could have been easily rectified by the petitioner.

10. It is also the case of the respondent that the original filing of the petitioner was non-est, on account of the cumulative procedural defects, and the filing was only with a view to stop the limitation period from running. Further, no sufficient cause was shown by the petitioner to substantiate the delay in filing of the present petition. Therefore, the present petition has been filed with a non-condonable delay of 30 days.

11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

12. At the outset, this Court notes the various dates and the details of filing and re-filing by the petitioner, upon the objections raised by the Registry to the present petition, on the basis of log details of filing/r