Condonation of delay in Section 11 applications requires demonstrating an exceptional and very strong case.

The Applicant, a registered LLP, was the 8th partner in M/s. R.B. Builders and Developers (the Firm), which was formed for the redevelopment of "Panwala chawl" in Mumbai

Following disputes and a stop-work notice in 2012, the Applicant sought to withdraw and requested a refund of approximately Rs. 29.63 crores

On June 20, 2020, the Applicant invoked the arbitration clause under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Contemporaneously, the Applicant filed a Section 9 petition for interim measures, which were granted on July 20, 2020, to preserve the suit property

Between 2023 and 2025, the Applicant engaged in extensive litigation, including Writ Petitions, to challenge MHADA’s acquisition of the property and the blacklisting of the Firm

After the property was ultimately acquired by MHADA on March 20, 2025, the Applicant filed the present Section 11 application on November 15, 2025, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator

Due to a 258-day delay beyond the statutory limitation period, the Applicant also filed an Interim Application for condonation of delay

1. Whether the delay of 258 days in filing an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether the Applicant made out a "strong" and "exceptional" case for such condonation as required by judicial precedent

3. Whether a sole arbitrator should be appointed to adjudicate the disputes arising from the Deed of Alteration of Partnership dated April 10, 2013

The court applied Section 11(6) and Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alongside Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year limitation period from the date the right to sue accrues

It relied on Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., establishing that the right to apply for an arbitrator accrues upon the failure to comply with a Section 21 notice

Regarding COVID-19, the court applied the Supreme Court’s directions in RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, which excluded the period from March 15, 2020, to February 28, 2022, for limitation purposes

The court followed HPCL Bio-Fuels Ltd. v. Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad, which held that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 11 applications, such discretion should only be exercised in "exceptional cases" where a "very strong case" is made out

The court first determined the limitation period: the Section 21 notice was issued on June 20, 2020, meaning the right to apply accrued on June 26, 2020

Excluding the COVID-19 pandemic period (up to February 28, 2022) as per Supreme Court mandates, the limitation period for filing the Section 11 application was extended to February 28, 2025

Since the application was filed on November 15, 2025, a delay of 258 days existed

In analyzing "sufficient cause," the court noted that the Applicant was not dormant but was actively litigating via Section 9 and multiple Writ Petitions to preserve the "subject matter" of the arbitration (the redevelopment project)

The court reasoned that until the property was finally acquired by MHADA in March 2025, the Applicant’s primary focus was saving the project, which would have altered the nature of the dispute

The court concluded that these unique circumstances constituted a "strong and exceptional case," as the Applicant’s delay was tied to necessary steps for preserving the assets under dispute rather than negligence

Finding no dispute regarding the existence of the arbitration agreement in Clause 16 of the Partnership Deed, the court allowed the Section 11 application

The court appointed Mr. Justice A. A. Sayed (Retd.) as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, directing the parties to bear costs equally and the arbitrator to file the statutory disclosure under Section 11(8)

All rights and contentions were kept open for the arbitral tribunal