Gvpr Engineers Limited vs The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gvpr Engineers Limited vs The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the delay of 1678 days in filing the Interim Application, setting aside of the rejection order dated 20/02/2020, and restoration of Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 528 of 2019 to the file of this Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1678 days in filing the present Interim Application should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The Respondents' contention that the delay had not been sufficiently explained was not accepted; on a perusal of the Interim Application the Court found the circumstances of the delay explained.

Ratio / Principle

Since the Commercial Arbitration Application was under Section 11 and had been dismissed solely for want of non-removal of office objections, the substantive interest of justice required that the Interim Application be allowed and the Commercial Arbitration Application be heard on merits.

Key takeaways

The Interim Application was allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).ratio¶¶23
The Commercial Arbitration Application was restored to the file of this Court.ratio¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) — Arif S. Doctor, J. — Interim Application No. 247 of 2025 in Commercial Arbitration Application No. 528 of 2019 — GVPR Engineers Limited v. The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd. & Anr. — decided 30th MARCH, 2026. The Interim Application prayed (a) to set aside the rejection order dated 20/02/2020 and restore the Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 528 of 2019 to the file of the Court, and (b) to condone a delay of 1678 days in filing it. Counsel for the Applicant (Rajni Divkar with Pratik Divkar) contended that the Applicant was never informed that the Section 11 Commercial Arbitration Application had been dismissed for want of removal of office objections (such dismissal stated as on 7th October 2021), and that subsequent relocation of the matter to Pune occasioned the delay. Counsel for the Respondents (Anuj Jaiswal i/b Little & Co.), who did not file a reply affidavit, submitted that the delay was not sufficiently explained; the Court was unable to accept this contention, and held that, the Application having been dismissed solely for non-removal of office objections, the substantive interest of justice required that it be allowed and heard on merits. The Interim Application was allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b), and the Commercial Arbitration Application was restored to the file of the Court. No precedents were cited and no monetary amount was involved.

10-IA-247-2025 (OS) .DOC

1/2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 247 OF 2025

IN

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 528 OF 2019

GVPR Engineers Limited ...Applicant

Versus

The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd. & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr. Rajni Divkar a/w Mr. Pratik Divkar, for the Applicant.

Mr. Anuj Jaiswal i/b Little & Co., for the Respondents.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 30th MARCH, 2026

P.C.

The Interim Application seeks the following reliefs:

"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the rejection order dated 20/02/2020 and restore the Commercial Arbitration Application (L) no.528 of 2019, to the file of this Hon'ble Court. (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to condone delay of 1678 days in filing the present application."

Learned counsel for the Applicant has taken me through the Interim Application and explained the circumstances in which it was filed and the delay arose. Primarily, it is contended that the Applicant was never informed that the Commercial Arbitration Application was dismissed for want of removal of office objections. She also points out that though such dismissal was on 7 th October 2021, the matter was subsequently relocated to Pune, thus occasioning this delay.

Vaibhav

10-IA-247-2025 (OS) .DOC

2/2

Learned counsel for the Respondents does not wish to file a reply affidavit. He, however, submits that the delay has not been sufficiently explained.

On a perusal of the Interim Application, I am unable to accept his contention. Furthermore, given that the Commercial Arbitration Application is under Section 11 and was dismissed solely for want of non-removal of office objections, in my view, the substantive interest of justice would require that the same be allowed and the Application be heard on merits.

Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

The Commercial Arbitration Application is restored to the file of this Court.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

Vaibhav