Condonation of delay in arbitral award challenges requires a bona fide explanation; routine government delay will not suffice.

Delay in filing and re-filing a challenge to an arbitral award was refused condonation because the explanation based on file movement, internal approvals, missing records, and additional court fee was treated as ordinary governmental lethargy, not a reasonable or bona fide cause. The HC applied strict scrutiny and reaffirmed that the Government has no separate limitation regime from other litigants. In disputes relating to arbitral awards, delay in re-filing is not to be condoned routinely, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not by itself justify a liberal approach without a satisfactory explanation. The delayed appeal therefore failed at the threshold on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing and re-filing the appeal against the order refusing to set aside the arbitral award should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was explained on the basis of departmental movement of the file, pendency of internal approvals, difficulty in locating records, and an asserted requirement of additional court fee. The Court held that such explanations reflected ordinary governmental lethargy and did not amount to a reasonable or acceptable cause. Relying on the settled principle that there is no separate limitation regime for the Government, the Court applied strict scrutiny to the request for condonation. It also noted that in challenges connected with arbitral awards, delay in re-filing cannot be condoned routinely, and the explanation offered was neither satisfactory nor credible. The reference to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 did not justify a liberal approach in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The delay in filing and re-filing was not condoned.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed at the threshold on limitation, and the refusal to entertain the delayed challenge to the arbitral award was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay requires a reasonable, bona fide, and satisfactory explanation, and governmental departments are subject to the same limitation discipline as any other litigant, with stricter scrutiny applying where the challenge concerns an arbitral award.

---