Inordinate unexplained delay and contradictory pleadings do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) filed an appeal challenging an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which had upheld an arbitral award dated 13.07.2016 regarding land compensation

The appeal was filed on 19.10.2020 with a delay of 298 days

However, the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 6731/2022) was not filed until 24.06.2022—nearly two years after the appeal and four years after the lower court's disposal

The appellant attributed the delay to their counsel's failure to communicate the status of the case, while simultaneously claiming the counsel eventually intimated the office

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, requiring "sufficient cause" for condoning delay, and Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which limits the grounds for setting aside an award

Supreme Court precedents in Majji Sannemma v. Reddy Sridevi and Ajay Dabra v. Pyare Ram, which establish that negligence or lack of bona fides precludes condonation

Union of India v. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (2024), stating delay should not be excused as a matter of generosity

State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramkumar Choudhary (2024), which mandates fixing responsibility on government officials for callous delays

Regarding merits, it cited ONGC v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) to emphasize the limited scope of judicial interference with arbitral awards

The Court found the appellant’s explanation for the delay to be self-contradictory and lacking diligence. Specifically, the appellant claimed the counsel failed to inform them of the case status, yet also stated the counsel eventually provided the information that led to the filing

The Court noted that an appeal filed without a contemporaneous delay application is not valid in the eyes of the law; thus, the delay effectively extended to 2022 when the I.A. was finally filed

Applying the Ramkumar Choudhary principle, the Court characterized the delay as a result of "callous and lackadaisical attitude" by State machinery

On the merits, the Court observed that the Arbitrator had correctly factored in market value, location, and nature of the land, and NHAI failed to produce evidence of illegality, fraud, or conflict with public policy required to set aside an award

Consequently, the Arbitration Appeal was dismissed both as time-barred and on the ground that the underlying arbitral award dated 13.07.2016 suffered from no patent illegality under Section 34

The Court also directed the State to streamline its legal machinery and fix responsibility on officers responsible for such lapses