Airports Authority Of India vs M/S Vishal Infrastructure Ltd

$~53
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010365772026
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 & I.A. 21492/2026

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Mr. Archit Mishra,
Advocates alongwith Mr. Gagan
Kochar, Senior Manager (Law), Ms.
Prayga Bansal, J.E. (Law) and Ms.
Kashish Singhal, J.E. (Law).
versus

M/S VISHAL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Aditya Sikka, Ms. Onshi
Jakhar and Ms. Yuganshi Singh,
Advocates.

Date of Decision: 27th October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
O R D E R

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
I.A. 21493/2026 (seeking condonation of delay in filing the present
petition)

1. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section
34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Act’ ) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking condonation of delay of 24 days in
filing the petition under Section 34 of the Act beyond the 3 months’ period as
stipulated, however, within 30 days of the extended period.
2. Mr. Digvijay Rai, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 1 of 15

handed over the Bench a Chart signifying relevant dates of the movement of
the file from the date of the receipt of the Award, which is culled out from the
rejoinder.
3. Adverting to the said Chart, learned counsel submits that from the date
of the receipt of the Award dated 09.03.2026 i.e. on 17.03.2026, the petitioner
has not deliberately or wilfully delayed the filing of the accompanying
petition under Section 34 of the Act. He submits that a note was issued by the
office contemplating negotiations/challenge to some of the claims while
accepting some. He states that the file was sent to the General Manager
(Western Region) for Delegation of Power, subsequent whereto, the proposal
to constitute Award Review Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ARC’ )
was to be taken. He also states that the ARC was constituted by the competent
authority on 30.04.2026. Pursuant thereto, the respondent is stated to have
been invited for negotiations scheduled to be held on 11.05.2026. It is stated
that the respondent submitted its proposal sometime on 26.05.2026. While the
deliberations on the said proposals were being carried out by the ARC, the
ARC recommended that the Award be challenged vide its Note dated
08.06.2026. While the matter was under consideration, learned counsel states
that on 16.06.2026, Member (Planning) desired further negotiations on which
date the 3 months’ timeline to challenge the Award expired. By 01.07.2026, it
was recommended that the Award be challenged so as to save limitation, and
simultaneously to continue the efforts for negotiation. It is only thereafter that
the approval was granted, and by 04.07.2026, the petition is stated to have
been drafted. Learned counsel states that by 07.07.2026, the petition was
signed and on the following day, the counsel was engaged and petition was
successfully filed on 10.07.2026, however, after a delay of 24 days beyond
three months.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 2 of 15

4. From the above, Mr. Rai, learned counsel states that there is no
deliberate or wanton delay nor any negligence on the part of the petitioner in
filing the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Act.
5. He also relies on the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court
in M/S Tirupati Structurals Ltd. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr.
dated 14.11.2017 in FAO No.29/2017, and Delhi Development Authority vs.
Varindera Construction Limited reported in 2021 SCC OnLine DEL 2845 in
support of his contentions.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondent vehemently refutes the aforesaid submissions.
7. At the outset, learned senior counsel states that the application is bereft
of any material particulars, and is absolutely perfunctory containing no details
whatsoever as to why and for what reason the delay of 24 days beyond three
months had occasioned.
8. He states and it is trite that the Court would treat applications seeking
condonation of delay filed on behalf of Government departments with the
same benchmark as in the case of private parties. Merely because the
applicant is a Government department, no special equities or any special
consideration can be sought by the applicant-petitioner.
9. While referring to the various notes filed alongwith the rejoinder by the
petitioner, learned senior counsel emphatically contends that there is no clear
or justifiable reason as to why the petitioner could not have filed the petition
under Section 34 of the Act within the three month period stipulated by the
Act. By referring to the various timelines of the notes annexed to the
rejoinder, learned senior counsel contends that the total time period that the
file was retained without any explanation whatsoever was to the extent of 83
days. He further states that even if the e-mails for settlement were considered,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 3 of 15

the maximum period entailing such correspondence was only 14 days. Thus,
there is total absence of any explanation whatsoever of 69 days having lapsed
while the file was retained with only one officer.
10. He emphasizes that in the absence of a sufficient cause, this Court may
not entertain the present application, and the same may be dismissed with
costs.
11. He further contends that there is a paradigm shift in the manner in
which the Courts, particularly the Supreme Court, has considered the
applications seeking condonation of delay under the Limitation Act or any
particular Act regarding what would constitute, sufficient cause. He contends
that once the original threshold of three months’ as stipulated under Section
34(3) of the Act has crossed, the onus of the petitioner to explain every single
day’s delay, and of not only the 24 days of delay but also the three months
which had passed are required to be explained with cogent and sufficient
reasons. The application being bereft of that, the petitioner has no substance
or merit in the explanation it is seeking to provide in its rejoinder. In support
thereto, learned senior counsel relies on the judgement of Supreme Court in
Shivamma (Dead) by LRS v. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. , Civil
Appeal No.11794 of 2025 dated 12.09.2025, particularly, paras 115, 210 and
262, and the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Public
Works Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. M/s Shyam Sunder Tyagi ,
O.M.P.(COMM) 428/2025 dated 20.07.2026.
12. This Court has considered the arguments of Mr. Ashish Mohan, learned
senior counsel and Mr.Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the
records as also considered the judgements relied upon by the parties.
13. Undoubtedly, the principle laid down in Shivamma (supra) by the

Supreme Court, particularly paras 115, 210 and 262, is the law which governs
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 4 of 15

as to what would constitute “sufficient cause”. It is unambiguous that there is
a paradigm shift so far as applications seeking condonation of delay, sought
even by the Government departments, in that, no special equities would be in
favour of the Government department merely on account of administrative
delays and such departments are required to give satisfactory explanation
justifying the delay.
14. Mr. Rai, learned counsel sought to contend that the judgement of the
Supreme Court in Shivamma (supra) would be distinguishable since it
emanated in the context of provisions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The said submission is not only unpersuasive but also unmerited. This is for
the reason that though no doubt the Supreme Court was considering the case
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, yet, what is culled
out as a ratio is the principles laid down for consideration of what would
constitute “sufficient cause”. That principle, in the opinion of this Court,
would also be clearly applicable to the words “sufficient cause” as would
occur in proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act. Merely because the Act itself
provides for a special limitation, would not ipso facto dilute the requirement
of a party to disclose sufficient cause occasioning the delay in filing the
petition under the Act.
15. Having said that, this Court proceeds to consider as to whether the
petitioner has been able to sufficiently explain the delay so as to constitute
sufficient cause.
16. Rather than to elaborately deal with the submissions made by Mr. Rai,
learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner, it appears apposite to extract the
Chart of Events as handed over today in Court during arguments. The same is
extracted hereunder:
“ Relevant dates of movement of files from the date of Receipt of Award
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 5 of 15

(Rejoinder)
Sl.
No.
Date Pg No Events
1. 09.03.26 54 Award dated 09.03.2026.
2. 17.03.26 Date of Receipt of the Award dated 09.03.2026.
3. 10.07.26 Date of filing of the instant petition. (Total delay of 24
days beyond three months and within the extended 30
days).
4. 30.03.26 9-37 First Note recommending negotiations / challenge to
some claims while accepting some claims. (Relevant
noting on Page 37).
5. 01.04.26 38 File sent to GM (WR).
6. 20.04.26 52 As per DoP, file was sent to Member (Plg.) [Competent
Authority] regarding acceptance of Award/Settlement.
7. 28.04.26 70 Proposal to constitute Award Review Committee (ARC).
8. 30.04.26 71 Competent Authority approves constitution of ARC.
9. 05.05.26 Respondent was invited for negotiations to be held on
11.05.2026.
10. 06.05.26 72 Respondent requested for the meeting to be held on
15.05.2026, which was re-scheduled for 18.05.2026 and
on the request of the Respondent, the meeting was held on
20.05.2026.
11. 26.05.26 74 Respondent submitted its proposal.
12. 29.05.26 ARC deliberated upon the Proposal of Respondent.
13. 01.06.26 79 ARC again deliberated upon the proposal in the presence
of field engineers.
14. 08.06.26 79 ARC recommended to challenge the Award.
[From 05.05.2026 to 08.06.2026 i.e. 33 days, parties
were exploring the possibility of settlement]
15. 09.06.26 81 File was sent to Member (Plg.) for approval.
16. 16.06.26 81 Member (Plg.) desired for further negotiations. [3 months
timeline to challenge the Award expired on he said date.]
17. 01.07.26 82 It was recommended to challenge the Award to save
limitation and in the meantime make efforts to negotiate.
18. 02.07.26 83 Approval was granted for challenge of the award.
19. 03.07.26 83 File sent to GM (Law).
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 6 of 15

20. 04.07.26 Petition was drafted and sent to the Office of GM (Law)
for vetting and approval.
21. 07.07.26 Petition was signed.
22. 08.07.26 88 Chairman approved the engagement of the present
counsel.
23. 10.07.26 The present petition was filed along with an application
seeking condonation of delay of 24 days, beyond 3
months.
17. While the aforesaid list of dates and events appear to explain the delay,
it may also be relevant, since there is a vehement opposition to the
condonation of delay, to also extract certain file notings in the form of notes,
which would demonstrate as to whether the petitioner was diligent and
cognizant in pursuing the matter.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 7 of 15

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 8 of 15

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 9 of 15

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 10 of 15

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 11 of 15

18. On a holistic and cumulative reading of the list of events as also the file
notings referred above, it appears that the applicant-petitioner after having
suffered the Arbitral Award dated 09.03.2026 had recommended that
negotiations for settlement of certain claims with the respondent and
simultaneously challenge to some of the claims could be undertaken.
Accordingly and in pursuance of such recommendation, the delegation of
power was obtained and in terms of the proposal to constitute ARC, an ARC
in fact was constituted by the Competent Authority on 30.04.2026.
Consequent to such constitution, the respondent was invited for negotiations
to be scheduled on 11.05.2026 vide the communication dated 05.05.2026. It
appears that vide the communication dated 06.05.2026, the respondent
requested the meeting to be held on 15.05.2026, which was subsequent to re-
schedule for 18.05.2026, and on the request of the respondent, the meeting
was held on 20.05.2026.
19. Following the meeting, the respondent is stated to have submitted its
proposal on 26.05.2026. This proposal was deliberated by the ARC on
29.05.2026 and 01.06.2026. On 08.06.2026, it appears that the ARC
recommended that the impugned Award be challenged. Thus, in all, around
33 days were spent in exploring the possibility of settlement.
20. The notes also disclose that on 09.06.2026, the file was sent to the
Member (Planning) for approval. However, the Member (Planning) after
deliberations desired for further negotiations on 16.06.2026. It is not denied
that the three months prescribed time period to challenge the impugned
Award expired on the said date. On 01.07.2026, the recommendation to
challenge the Award, purely to save the limitation, was proposed and
simultaneously in the meantime it was also recommended that efforts to
negotiate be continued. This appears from Note 46 appended to the rejoinder.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 12 of 15

On 02.07.2026, approval was granted, and on 03.07.2026, a file was sent to
the General Manager (Law). It is stated that on 04.07.2026, the petition was
drafted and sent to the Office of General Manager (Law) for waiting approval.
Petition is stated to be signed on 07.07.2026, and the Chairman approved the
engagement of the counsel on 08.07.2026. The said counsel is stated to have
filed the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the Act on 10.07.2026
which was with a delay of 24 days beyond the three months’ prescribed time
period under the Act.
21. The judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Delhi
Development Authority ( supra ) appears to have dealt with somewhat a
similar fact situation, and while relying on the judgement of the Supreme
Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village vs. Bhargavi
Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008) 8 SCC 321 observed that the words “sufficient
cause” should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical
and liberal manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case
and the type of case. Similarly, learned Single Judge in M/S Tirupati
Structural Ltd. ( supra ) in para 4 while dealing with an appeal under Section
37 noted as under:
“4. In my opinion, once the law is harsh that there cannot be condonation
of delay after three months plus 30 days then if there is any delay beyond
three months upto 30 days, Courts should be liberal in allowing
condonation of delay upto 30 days, otherwise vested rights and valuable
rights of an objector to file objections to the Award would be rejected only
on the ground of limitation, though every endeavour should be made to
decide the objections on merits.”
22. A holistic reading of the file notings does demonstrate that the
applicant-petitioner was cognizant and was taking conscious decisions in
regard to (i) a challenge to the impugned Arbitral Award dated 09.03.2026,
and (ii) also a plausible settlement by negotiating certain claims which it may
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 13 of 15

have decided to accept. Undoubtedly and as revealed from the record,
substantial time was invested in negotiating settlement with the respondent.
At the same time, the recommendation by the ARC to challenge the Award
was also taken on 08.06.2026. However, the file was put up before the
Member (Planning) on 09.06.2026, who after further deliberation desired
further negotiations.
23. There does not appear to this Court, any deliberate reason why the
applicant-petitioner would delay laying a challenge to the impugned Arbitral
Award. A party is entitled to also explore a possibility of conciliation or
settlement of the claims which may have been awarded by the Arbitrator.
There is no proscription in law against a party seeking to settle disputes in
order to end the lis . Such efforts cannot be stated to be meaningless or an
effort to deliberately delay challenging the Arbitral Award.
24. In the overall context, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
applicant-petitioner has been able to satisfactorily demonstrate “sufficient
cause” for not having filed the accompanying petition under Section 34 of the
Act within the prescribed three months period. The delay of 24 days from the
expiry of the three months period and the period prior thereto are
satisfactorily explained.
25. In that view of the matter, the application is allowed and the delay of 24
days beyond 3 months’ in filing the present petition under Section 34 of the
Act is condoned.
26. Though, this Court has allowed the present application in view of the
explanation provided by the applicant-petitioner, however, it is noted that the
application seeking condonation of delay is bereft of any such detailed
explanations. The said application lacks in material particulars which have
subsequently been answered in the rejoinder. As a note of caution, this Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 14 of 15

would urge that the Government departments including the petitioner to be
vigilant as to provide detailed reasons in the application itself seeking
condonation of delay.
27. With the aforesaid note, this Court disposes of the application by
allowing the same.
28. The application stands disposed of.
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026
29. Issue notice.
30. Notice is accepted by Mr. Aditya Sikka, learned counsel for the
respondent.
31. Reply be filed within four weeks from date.
32. Rejoinder thereto, be filed within four weeks thereafter.
33. List before the Joint Registrar (Judl.) on 08.01.2027 for completion of

service and pleadings.
34. List before the Court on 09.02.2027.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026/ anj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:31:33
O.M.P. (COMM) 363/2026 Page 15 of 15