https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778662 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. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778662 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778662