Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to Chamber Appeals under the Delhi High Court Original Side Rules.

The Petitioner, an enlisted contractor, was awarded an EPC contract by the Respondent (CPWD) for the construction of the IIM Jammu campus

Disputes arose regarding project delays, alleged defects, and payments

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

During proceedings, IIM Jammu (the project beneficiary) sought impleadment, which was granted by the Joint Registrar

The Petitioner challenged this via Chamber Appeals, which were initially allowed but remanded by a Division Bench to adjudicate a one-day delay in filing and the merits of impleadment

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, noting that the general law of limitation applies to "any appeal" unless expressly excluded by a special law

It distinguished Ram Sarup Lugani v. Nirmal Lugani, stating that unless a rule uses prohibitory language like "but not thereafter," Section 5 remains applicable

Regarding impleadment, the Court relied on the "Group of Companies" doctrine and the principle of party autonomy as reiterated in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd., which mandate that non-signatories can only be joined if there is clear evidence of consensual intent to be bound by the arbitration agreement

The Court rejected the argument that Chapter II Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules is an absolute bar to condonation, finding no "peremptory embargo" or exclusionary phraseology in the rule's text

Given the delay was only one day and no prejudice was shown, the Court condoned the delay in the interest of substantial justice

On the merits of impleadment, the Court found that while IIM Jammu was the beneficiary, the contract was exclusively between the Petitioner and CPWD

It held that "ultimate beneficiary" status is not a valid legal test for joining a non-signatory to arbitration

The Court observed that Clause 36 of the NIT maintained a clear distinction between the executing authority (CPWD) and the beneficiary (IIM Jammu), and impleading the latter would violate the principle of party autonomy

set aside the Joint Registrar’s orders impleading IIM Jammu

The Court allowed ARB.P. 1787/2025, directing CPWD to appoint a nominee arbitrator in strict accordance with the mandatory qualifications in Clause 25 of the GCC

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