Delay in substituting a sole arbitrator was not condoned where email communication was received and no sufficient cause was shown.

Delay in filing a petition for substitution of a sole arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not condoned because no sufficient cause was shown. The arbitrator's recusal had been communicated by email and received by the parties, while the explanation that counsel could access the email account only later due to technical issues was found ambiguous. The High Court's assessment of the delay was also viewed in the context of a long-pending arbitral dispute, and its refusal to exercise discretion was not found perverse or productive of manifest injustice. The refusal to condone delay was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the petition for substitution of the sole arbitrator under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deserved condonation.

Analysis: The communication of the sole arbitrator's recusal was through email, and the parties had received it. The explanation that counsel could access the email account only later because of technical issues was found to be ambiguous. The High Court had considered the grounds for delay and concluded that no sufficient cause was shown. The delay was also viewed against the background of a long-pending arbitral dispute, and the refusal to exercise discretion was not found to be perverse or to cause manifest injustice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The refusal to condone the delay was upheld.

---