Strict condonation of delay in re-filing a Section 34 petition requires diligence and a bona fide explanation; refusal was affirmed.

Delay in re-filing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not condoned unless the applicant shows prompt diligence and a satisfactory, bona fide explanation for the delay. Where the petition was filed without court fee, defects remained uncured for a substantial period, and the explanation for re-filing was unsatisfactory, the delay could not be justified. The strict approach to limitation in arbitration matters therefore led to refusal of condonation, and that refusal was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deserved condonation.

Analysis: The petition was originally filed without the requisite court fee and was repeatedly re-filed with defects remaining uncured for a substantial period. The explanation offered for the delay, including time taken to arrange court fee and prepare a soft copy, was found unsatisfactory. In matters arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, limitation is to be strictly applied, and condonation is available only where the applicant shows due diligence and a bona fide, unavoidable cause for the delay. The record did not show such diligence, and the delay in re-filing was not adequately explained.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not condoned and the refusal to condone was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order refusing condonation of delay in re-filing stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Delay in re-filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 will not be condoned unless the applicant shows prompt diligence and a satisfactory explanation demonstrating bona fide and unavoidable delay.

---