Condonation of inordinate delay requires a satisfactory and proper explanation; sympathy alone cannot justify setting aside an arbitral award.

An inordinate delay of 3320 days in filing a petition to set aside an arbitral award could not be condoned because the explanation offered was not proper, satisfactory or convincing. The SC held that when a mandatory requirement is not met, condonation cannot rest on sympathy alone; it requires reasonable, sufficient and proper cause supported by acceptable justification. As the delay was undisputed and the recorded reasons were found unsatisfactory, the orders condoning delay were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether an inordinate delay of 3320 days in filing the petition to set aside the arbitral award could be condoned in the absence of a proper, satisfactory and convincing explanation.

Analysis: The delay was not disputed. The reasons recorded by the subordinate court and accepted by the High Court were held to be unsatisfactory, there being no acceptable justification for the extraordinary lapse. The Court held that where a mandatory requirement is not complied with, delay cannot be condoned merely on sympathetic considerations, and that condonation requires reasonable, satisfactory, sufficient and proper cause.

Conclusion: The delay could not be condoned, and the orders condoning it were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate delay cannot be condoned unless it is explained by a reasonable, satisfactory and sufficient cause; sympathy alone is not a lawful basis for condonation.

---