An appeal filed without the impugned judgment and arbitral award is non-est and does not stop limitation.

The Department of Land Resources appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against orders dismissing its Section 34 challenges to an arbitral award.

The respondent objected that the appeals were time-barred and that their initial filings were non-est because they did not include the impugned orders or arbitral award.

The Department relied on the 2024 Lok Sabha elections to explain the filing delay and the court’s summer vacation to explain the re-filing delay.

The Court treated 10 June 2024 as the filing date, after finding that the initial filings on 11 May 2024 omitted the impugned orders and award.

Whether the initial appeal filings, made without the impugned orders and arbitral award, were non-est and therefore did not stop limitation from running.

Whether the Department established sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the Section 37 appeals.

Whether the delay in re-filing the appeals could be condoned in light of the explanation offered.

Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 prescribes a 60-day limitation period for Section 37 appeals concerning a specified-value dispute of at least ₹3 lakh.

Under Rule 3, Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules, 2018, the period for re-filing is 30 days.

In Pragati Constructions Consultants v. Union of India, the Delhi High Court Full Bench held that non-filing of the arbitral award with a Section 34 application may render the filing non-est, while other defects must generally be assessed cumulatively.

Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd. holds that, given the objective of speedy dispute resolution, delay beyond the applicable period is to be condoned exceptionally, not routinely; a government litigant receives no different standard, and a bona fide, non-negligent explanation is required.

Because the initial filings omitted both the impugned orders and the arbitral award, the Court held they were non-est and did not stop limitation; it therefore treated 10 June 2024 as the filing date.

The appeals were consequently filed 119 and 132 days beyond the applicable 60-day period.

The Court found the Department’s general reliance on the election period did not explain how the elections prevented timely filing, and the stated summer-vacation explanation did not adequately account for the re-filing delays.

Applying Borse Brothers, it concluded that these explanations did not establish sufficient cause and that the government was not entitled to a more lenient standard.

It disposed of any pending applications.