https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165224 An order rejecting condonation of delay in proceedings to set aside an arbitral award was treated as a refusal to set aside the award, so it was appealable under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and a revision under Section 115 CPC did not lie. The expression "refusing to set aside an award" was held to include refusal caused by failure to satisfy limitation requirements. On the facts, the delay was satisfactorily explained by incorrect legal advice and procedural confusion, and condonation was justified. The challenge to the award was therefore allowed to proceed on merits, and the High Court's order condoning delay and remanding the matter was sustained. en-us Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Apr 2020 14:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165224 An order rejecting condonation of delay in proceedings to set aside an arbitral award was treated as a refusal to set aside the award, so it was appealable under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and a revision under Section 115 CPC did not lie. The expression "refusing to set aside an award" was held to include refusal caused by failure to satisfy limitation requirements. On the facts, the delay was satisfactorily explained by incorrect legal advice and procedural confusion, and condonation was justified. The challenge to the award was therefore allowed to proceed on merits, and the High Court's order condoning delay and remanding the matter was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165224