_edited.png)
Delay of twenty seven days in filing section 34 petition condoned where judgment debtor diligently pursued section 33 application and related proceedings: Delhi high court
Case Title: Inox Wind Ltd. and Anr. v. Jasdan Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: (2026) ibclaw.in 5008 HC
Coram: Justice Avneesh Jhingan
The Delhi High Court has condoned a delay of twenty seven days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that the delay stood explained by the judgment debtor's continued pursuit of its statutory remedies at every stage, and did not reflect dilatory conduct.
The arbitral award was passed on December 11, 2025 and served on the parties the next day. On December 15, 2025, the judgment debtor informed the decree holder that interpretation of certain aspects of the award was needed under Section 33(1)(b) of the Act, to which the decree holder objected. The judgment debtor filed an application seeking interpretation on January 8, 2026, and the decree holder replied on January 10, 2026 stating that in the absence of its consent, the application was not maintainable. The tribunal neither considered nor disposed of this application. The ninety day limitation period under Section 34(3) expired on March 11, 2026. The decree holder filed an enforcement petition on March 18, 2026, and on March 20, 2026 the High Court rejected the judgment debtor's preliminary objection based on pendency of the Section 33 application, directing deposit of the award amount and filing of an affidavit of assets. The judgment debtor filed the petition under Section 34 along with an application for condonation of delay on April 8, 2026, and separately challenged the order dated March 20, 2026 before the Supreme Court, which directed deposit of a further sum before the High Court and left the condonation application to be decided by the High Court on its own merits.
The judgment debtor contended that it bona fide believed the limitation for filing the Section 34 petition would commence from disposal of its Section 33 application, that it had raised the pendency of the application as an objection in the enforcement proceedings, and that upon rejection of that objection it filed the Section 34 petition within a reasonable time. It relied on the proviso to Section 34(3), which permits condonation of delay up to thirty days on sufficient cause. The decree holder argued that the application under Section 33(1)(b) was not maintainable in the absence of its consent, that the thirty day period for the tribunal to decide the application expired on February 7, 2026 while the limitation to file the Section 34 petition expired on March 11, 2026, leaving ample unexplained time, and that the failure to file within this period reflected an intentional and dilatory approach. Reliance was placed on Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gaurav, 2025 SCC OnLine 1811, Delhi Development Authority v. M/s. Integrated Techsystems Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4214, and other decisions declining to condone delay in the absence of a bona fide explanation.
The Court held that since the delay was less than thirty days, the question of maintainability of the application under Section 33(1)(b) need not be examined for deciding the condonation application. It noted that Section 33(2) of the Act obliges the tribunal to consider a request under Section 33(1) within thirty days of its receipt, without distinguishing between clause (a) and clause (b), and that the application in this case was never considered by the tribunal. The Court found that the judgment debtor had pursued its remedies at every stage, by filing the Section 33 application, raising a preliminary objection in the enforcement proceedings, challenging the order dated March 20, 2026 before the Supreme Court, and filing the Section 34 petition within eighteen days of that order, and that this did not amount to negligence or dilatory tactics. It also held that non-service of a copy of the petition on the decree holder until April 28, 2026 was of no consequence, since the decree holder did not press that the filing was non est, and the objections raised by the registry had been duly removed.
Distinguishing the decisions relied upon by the decree holder, the Court observed that Union of India v. M/s. Azfarduddin Engineers and Govt. Contractor and Public Works Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. M/s. Shyam Sunder Tyagi dealt with internal departmental delay and voluminous record explanations respectively, and were not applicable to the facts of the case. In CMI Limited v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., the application under Section 33 had been filed six months after the award, beyond the prescribed thirty day period, whereas in the present case the Section 33 application had been filed within the prescribed period. The decision in Integrated Techsystems Pvt. Ltd. concerned the maintainability of an application under Section 33(1)(b) in the absence of consent, and was relevant only to that issue. On Geojit Financial Services Ltd., which held that where a Section 33 application is filed within thirty days and with notice to the other party, limitation for the Section 34 petition runs from disposal of that application irrespective of its outcome, the Court held that the present case involved only the question of condoning a twenty seven day delay under the proviso to Section 34(3), and not the computation of limitation from the date of disposal of the Section 33 application.
The Court held that the power to condone delay under Section 34(3) has to be exercised keeping in view the objective of an expeditious and time bound conclusion of arbitration proceedings, and with a comparatively stricter approach than under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The proviso to Section 34(3) permits condonation of delay up to thirty days on sufficient cause being shown, and the delay of twenty seven days in the present case stood duly explained. The application for condonation of delay was accordingly allowed.
Comments