A Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award was filed with a 98-day delay. Citing Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., the court held the excess delay beyond three months plus thirty days non-condonable, dismissed the condonation application, and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~37
CHIEF ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAYS DIVISION UPPWD
.....Petitioner
Through:
versus
MAHAKALESHWAR INFRATECH PVT LTD
.....Respondent Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. S. Sharma, Mr. K. Gupta, Ms. Anushka Nayyar, Mr. Manas Agrawal, Mr. Shiv Azad Sharma, Mr. Charchit Talwar, Mr. Syed Aggar, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
O R D E R % 06.09.2024
I.A. 38610/2024
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 02:55:39
30.01.2024.
“9. Section 34 provides that recourse to a court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award “in accordance with” sub-section (2) and sub-section (3). Sub-section (2) relates to the grounds for setting aside an award. An application filed beyond the period mentioned in sub-section (3) of Section 34, would not be an application “in accordance with” that sub-section. By virtue of Section 34(3), recourse to the court against an arbitral award cannot be beyond the period prescribed. Sub-section (3) of Section 34, read with the proviso, makes it abundantly clear that the application for setting aside the award on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) will have to be made within a period of three months from the date on which the party making that application receives the arbitral award. The proviso allows this period to be further extended by another period of thirty days on sufficient cause being shown by the party for filing an application. The intent of the legislature is evinced by the use of the words “but not thereafter” in the proviso. These words make it abundantly clear that as far as the limitation for filing an application for setting aside an
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 02:55:39
arbitral award is concerned, the statutory period prescribed is three months which is extendable by another period of up to thirty days (and no more) subject to the satisfaction of the court that sufficient reasons were provided for the delay.”
O.M.P. (COMM) 382/2024
JASMEET SINGH, J
SEPTEMBER 6, 2024/DM
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 02:55:39
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a delay of 68 days in filing the Section 34 petition beyond the statutory period can be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶3
(2019) 2 SCC 455 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chief Engineer National Highways Division UPPWD
Mahakaleshwar Infratech Pvt Ltd
Jasmeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
