Unexplained delay in a commercial arbitration appeal does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation.

The IV Additional District and Commercial Court, Dakshina Kannada, dismissed as withdrawn a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award, dismissed the landowners’ counter-claim/cross-appeal, and confirmed the award dated 13 December 2022.

The appellant challenged that decision by a commercial appeal and sought condonation of 271 days’ delay.

He stated that, after obtaining the certified copy on 23 October 2023, he consulted counsel in February 2024, obtained the trial court records, and filed MFA No. 2261/2024 on 26 March 2024.

That MFA was withdrawn on 29 May 2024 with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy; the present appeal was filed thereafter.

Respondent No. 1 opposed condonation, arguing that the delay was insufficiently explained.

1. Whether the appellant established sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the commercial appeal.

2. Whether filing and subsequently withdrawing the MFA, with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy, adequately explained the delay in filing the present appeal.

Under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an appeal is subject to the applicable limitation period.

In Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 460, the Supreme Court held that, given the objective of speedy dispute resolution under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, delay beyond the prescribed period is to be condoned by way of exception, not as a rule; a short delay may be condoned where the party acted bona fide and without negligence.

The court also relied on State of Uttar Pradesh v. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151, for the principle that a liberal approach to condonation still requires a plausible explanation for the delay.

The appellant’s affidavit did not explain why he took no steps between obtaining the certified copy in October 2023 and consulting counsel in February 2024, or why obtaining the trial court records prevented timely filing.

Filing the MFA did not account for the delay preceding its institution.

Nor did the liberty granted upon its withdrawal automatically condone the existing delay or explain the further interval before the present appeal was filed.

The court therefore found that the affidavit did not establish sufficient cause under the governing principles.

It dismissed I.A. No. 1/2024 seeking condonation of delay and, consequently, dismissed the commercial appeal without examining its merits; pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.