Facts
The appellant (BSNL) challenged an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 5 September 2023, the appellant’s counsel withdrew said petition with liberty to take appropriate legal recourse
Source reference: p. 1-2575 days later, the appellant filed a restoration application (Misc DJ 246/2025), claiming their previous counsel had wrongly advised them to re-file in another forum
Source reference: p. 2The Commercial Court dismissed the restoration application on 27 November 2025, citing an inordinate delay and lack of sufficient cause
Source reference: p. 2-3The appellant then preferred this appeal challenging both the withdrawal order of 2023 and the dismissal of the restoration application in 2025, accompanied by an application to condone an 809-day delay in filing the appeal
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether a restoration application is maintainable against an order dismissing a Section 34 petition as withdrawn
Source reference: p. 2, para. 42. Whether administrative lethargy and purported wrong legal advice constitute sufficient grounds to condone a 575-day delay in filing a restoration application or an 809-day delay in filing an appeal in commercial matters
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 6 & 13Law Applied
The court applied Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, noting that orders disposing of Section 34 petitions are only appealable, not subject to restoration applications
Source reference: p. 2Regarding limitation, the court relied on Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited [2025 SCC OnLine SC 910] and Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd [(2021) 6 SCC 460], which establish that in commercial matters, delay must be viewed strictly and explained with cogent material, rather than the latitude allowed in ordinary suits
Source reference: p. 5, para. 13Reasoning
The High Court found the appellant's restoration application legally untenable because an order disposing of a Section 34 petition can only be challenged via appeal under Section 37
Source reference: para. 4the court determined that the appellant failed to provide a "tenable explanation" for the 575-day delay in seeking restoration and the subsequent 809-day delay in filing the present appeal
Source reference: para. 10, 12The court rejected the plea of "administrative lethargy" and the vague allegation of incorrect legal advice, noting that the appellant never actually followed the purported advice to file in another forum
Source reference: para. 5-6Applying the strict standards of the Commercial Courts Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court, the Bench held that the "laxity" displayed by the appellant was fatal to the case
Source reference: para. 13-14Holding
The Court dismissed the appeal in limine. It held that the challenge to the 2023 withdrawal order was "hopelessly barred by time" (809 days) and that the 2025 order dismissing the restoration application was correct, as the application was both non-maintainable and lacked sufficient cause for the 575-day delay
No notice was issued as no sustainable grounds for challenge existed
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Bharat Sanchar Nigam LimitedvsRoyal India Technoprojects Limited
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in