Limitation Act Section 5 applies to Chamber Appeals against Registrar orders under Delhi High Court Original Side Rules.

The Petitioner, a construction company, was awarded a contract by the Respondent (CPWD) for the construction of the IIM Jammu campus.

Disputes arose regarding project delays, defects, and payments after the campus was inaugurated in 2024.

The Petitioner invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 25 of the GCC) and filed a Section 11 petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, alongside three Section 9 petitions for interim protection against coercive actions.

During proceedings, IIM Jammu (the ultimate beneficiary) sought impleadment.

The Joint Registrar allowed impleadment on 23.01.2026.

The Petitioner challenged this via Chamber Appeals, which were filed with a one-day delay.

The Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Judge to first decide the condonation of delay and then the merits of the impleadment.

1. Whether the one-day delay in filing Chamber Appeals under Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 is condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. Whether IIM Jammu, as a non-signatory and ultimate beneficiary of the contract, is a necessary or proper party to be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, regarding the condonation of delay upon showing "sufficient cause".

Interpretation of Chapter II Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, noting the absence of restrictive language like "but not thereafter".

The court applied the "Group of Companies" doctrine and principles of party autonomy under Sections 7 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Reliance on Cox and Kings Ltd. v. Sap India Pvt. Ltd., establishing that a non-signatory is bound only if it consented to be bound or acted as a "veritable party".

Reliance on Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., which confines the court’s Section 11 jurisdiction to examining the existence of an arbitration agreement between specific parties.

Regarding the delay, the Court rejected the argument that the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules exclude the Limitation Act. Since the Rules do not contain a peremptory bar (unlike provisions for written statements), Section 5 remains applicable to advance "substantial justice".

Regarding impleadment, the Court found that the contract was strictly between CPWD and the Petitioner.

The fact that IIM Jammu was the "ultimate beneficiary" or provided funding does not create privity of contract.

The Court noted that Clause 36 of the NIT required IIM Jammu to communicate deficiencies through CPWD, preserving CPWD as the sole nodal contractual authority.

Impleading every project beneficiary would destroy party autonomy and convert focused arbitrations into sprawling multi-party disputes.

CPWD’s attempt to nominate an arbitrator without the mandatory qualifications (Graduate Engineer) stipulated in Clause 25 was found to violate the agreed terms.

It allowed the Chamber Appeals and set aside the impleadment of IIM Jammu, ruling that it was neither a signatory nor a veritable party to the arbitration agreement.

The Section 11 petition was allowed, directing CPWD to appoint a nominee arbitrator as per the mandatory qualifications in Clause 25 within 15 days.

The Section 9 petitions were converted into Section 17 applications to be decided by the newly constituted Arbitral Tribunal.