SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33746

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.Thamilselvi, J
Antoine Arokianathan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition|IA No.1 of 2025 in unnumbered AOP No. 2025|AOP.No.40 of 2019



Advocates:
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.C.Vishwanth
For Respondent(s):Mr.P.S.Kothandaraman, Government Advocate for Pudhucherry

Technical faults in online filing excuse delay in arbitration appeals; condonation warranted despite Limitation Act inapplicability.

Headnote:The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly Section 34(3) prescribing a 30-day limitation for challenging awards, with Section 5 of the Limitation Act held inapplicable by the trial court. Facts involve an arbitration award passed on 07.02.2024 against the petitioner, an appeal filed online on 26.03.2024 but processed on 12.06.2024 due to technical issues, resulting in a 30-day delay condonation application dismissed on 16.10.2025. Court finds technical fault not attributable to petitioner, warranting interference. Issue framed as applicability of Section 5 Limitation Act to arbitration appeals under Section 34 and whether delay due to online processing justifies condonation. Ratio: Technical glitches in online filing beyond petitioner's control excuse delay; petitioner cannot suffer for system faults, as appeal initiated within 40 days post-award (para 5). Civil Revision Petition allowed; trial court order in IA No.1 of 2025 set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of arbitration award and delay in appeal. (Para 2)
2. parties' contentions on delay condonation applicability. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court observes technical fault excuses delay. (Para 5)

ORDER

Challenging the impugned Order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in unnumbered AOP.No. 2025 the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

2. The respondent has initiated Arbitration proceedings against the petitioner in AOP.No.40 of 2019 before the Arbitration Tribunal, Puducherry. In the Arbitration proceedings an award has been passed against the petitioner. Challenging the said award he had preferred an appeal. But there is a delay of 30 days. Therefore, he filed an application to condone the delay under section 34[3] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The above application has been dismissed stating that the Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Arbitration proceedings, particularly under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Aggrieved over the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that immediately after passing of the award, he had filed an appeal through online on 26.03.2025. But due to online processing problem, the appeal has been filed before the Court on 12.06.2024. The delay is neither willful nor wanton and the same is due to online processing problem. The trial Court, without considering all these aspects had erroneously dismissed the application which requires interference.

4. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that since Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the arbitration proceedings, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application, which needs no interference.

5. A perusal of the records reveals that on 26.03.2024, the petitioner had preferred an appeal through online. But the same was not processed and finally, it was filed on 12.06.2024. In the meanwhile, there is a delay of 30 days and to condone, the petitioner had filed an application and the same was dismissed. Admittedly, the award was passed on 07.02.2024. Within 40 days, an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner on 12.06.2024 through online. But due to some technical fault the appeal was not processed and the fault was not on the part of the petitioner and for fault on technical issues, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. Hence, the Order of the trial Court has to be set aside.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top