Re-Filing Delays In Commercial Cases Must Be Treated As Seriously As Filing Delays: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Development Authority against a Commercial Court judgment upholding an arbitral award, refusing to condone delays in filing and re-filing the matter.

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla underscored the need for strict adherence to timelines in commercial disputes arising from arbitral proceedings.

“It is also settled that, in commercial matters, delay in re-filing has also to be treated with nearly with same seriousness as delay in filing.” , It noted.

The Court also reiterated that administrative lethargy by government bodies cannot justify condonation of delay.

“Keeping in mind the standards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgements cited supra, we regret that we are unable to regard the explanation as sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.”It added.

The case arose from a July 16, 2024 judgment of the Commercial Court rejecting DDA's challenge to the arbitral award and upholding the award in full. The time for filing the appeal expired on September 14, 2024, but DDA filed it only on November 23, 2024. After the appeal was returned with objections on November 28, 2024, it was re-filed only on August 20, 2025.

DDA attributed the delay in filing to its internal decision-making process. It said its panel lawyer returned the file on August 5, 2024, the Chief Legal Advisor recommended challenging the judgment on September 1, 2024, and the Arbitration Scrutiny Board decided to appeal on October 4, 2024. DDA also cited the voluminous record, internal consultations, and procedural requirements within the authority.

The High Court found the explanation inadequate. It noted that DDA failed to explain why its panel lawyer took three weeks to return the file, why the Chief Legal Advisor took nearly a month to make a recommendation, and why the Arbitration Scrutiny Board took over a month to take a final call.

For the delay in re-filing, DDA cited personal exigencies faced by its counsel. The Court noted that even according to DDA, those circumstances ended by May 20, 2025, with no explanation worth the name for the further delay until August 20, 2025.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd, Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam v. BHEL, and Shivamma v. Karnataka Housing Board, the Court held that condonation of delay in commercial and arbitral matters is an exception rather than the rule, and dismissed both applications seeking condonation of delay.