Condonation of refiling delay under arbitration law depends on diligent, satisfactory explanation; timely original filing does not guarantee relief.

Delay in refiling objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not subject to the same absolute limitation bar as the original filing, where the Section 34 application was lodged within time and defects were later cured. The court may therefore consider condonation of refiling delay, but only on a strict, fact-specific showing of diligence and sufficient cause, consistent with the Act's objective of expeditious arbitral finality. On the facts, an inordinate and unexplained 166-day delay was not justified, so condonation was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether delay in refiling objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be condoned beyond the outer limit of three months and thirty days prescribed for filing the application, and whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for condonation in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Section 34(3) prescribes limitation for making an application to set aside an arbitral award, but does not prescribe any separate time limit for refiling after defects are cured. Filing within limitation and refiling after removal of defects stand on different footings. Where the original filing is within time, the court is not barred by Section 34(3) from considering delay in refiling. At the same time, the power to condone such delay is not to be exercised liberally, because the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is intended to ensure expeditious conclusion of arbitral proceedings. The applicant must show diligence and a satisfactory explanation for the delay; inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be condoned merely because the initial filing was timely.

Conclusion: The court had jurisdiction to condone delay in refiling even beyond the period mentioned in Section 34(3), but the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 166 days. The delay was therefore not condoned and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an objection under Section 34 is filed within limitation, delay in refiling after removal of defects is not governed by the absolute bar in Section 34(3), but condonation depends on a satisfactory, diligent, and fact-specific explanation for the delay.

---