The court highlighted that in enforcement of foreign awards, a pragmatic approach to condoning delays is essential, prioritizing substantial justice over strict adherence to limitation periods.

ORDER

This application has been filed to condone the period of delay that was spent between 24.01.2017 and 22.03.2022 during the proceedings in E.P.No.17 of 2017.

2. The case of the applicant is that the applicant originally filed E.P.No.17 of 2017 for enforcement of the foreign award and the petition was listed before the learned Master. Since the same was entertained, A.Nos.1633 & 1634 of 2018 came to be filed by the respondent challenging the order passed by the learned Master and also for staying the execution proceedings. These applications were dismissed by the learned single Judge by an order dated 10.07.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed O.S.A.Nos.288 and 289 of 2018 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 02.01.2019, allowed the appeals in the following terms:-

“56. We therefore, allow both the appeals and hold that the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge made in Application Nos.1633 & 1634 of 2018, confirming the order dated 14.12.2017 of the learned Master in E.P.No.17 of 2017 is erroneous. In the result, the order dated 10.07.2018 of the learned single Judge confirming the order of the learned Master is hereby set aside and E.P.No.17 of 2017 filed by the respondent is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. However, we grant liberty to the respondent if so advised to file an application under Section 47 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to enforce and execute the foreign arbitral award dated 23.07.2015 before the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Original Side. No costs.”

3. Pursuant to the above order, the applicant filed Arb O.P.(Com.Div.)No.571 of 2023 for enforcement of the foreign award dated 23.07.2015 passed by the sole Arbitrator at California, USA and to execute the same as a decree. The respondent raised a preliminary objection stating that the original petition is barred by limitation, since the same has been filed beyond three years from the date of the award, as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. On such objection being raised, the present application was filed, after the original petition was numbered, to condone the delay.

4. Yet another application was filed by the applicant in A.No.2796 of 2025 to amend Para-15 of the original petition and to make necessary amendments and this application came to be allowed by an order dated 02.07.2025. Upon allowing the said application, the applicant also filed the amended pleadings.

5. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that the original petition itself ought not to have been numbered without the application to condone the delay in filing the petition being considered and allowed. Therefore, the learned counsel for respondent sought for the dismissal of the original petition. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the ground taken by the applicant to exempt the time taken in prosecuting the earlier petition is accounted, there will be a delay of 287 days, which remains unexplained. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for respondent filed a tabulation on computation of limitation to the following effect:-