Dismissed¶¶38

M/S Richa Constructions Co. v. M/S Nbcc (India) Ltd.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2025CM(M)/1864/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act objections dismissed in default; condonation of delay without formal condonation application; seven-month delay in restoration application; dismissal due to counsel's illness; PSU litigant and diligence; Commercial Courts Act timelines argument; Article 227 scope - quantum of costs not examined; costs Rs. 7,500/-; merits over defaults; CM(M) 1864/2024; Richa Constructions Co vs NBCC (India) Ltd; Justice Girish Kathpalia; Delhi High Court; order upheld, petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

There is no requirement of a formal application for condonation of delay in filing any application or appeal; if the court is satisfied from the record about the circumstances that led to the delay, it can condone the delay and adjudicate upon the main application. ¶¶30

M/S Richa Constructions Co. Vs M/S Nbcc (India) Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the application for restoration of the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed with a delay of about seven months and without a formal application seeking condonation of delay, could be entertained and allowed by the trial court. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

It is a cardinal principle of justice that disputes should be decided on merits and not defaults; where the party in default can be made to compensate the other side, the default must be condoned - as here, where the restoration application was allowed subject to costs.

¶¶30

Key takeaways

The quantum of costs (Rs. 7,500/-) is not a ground for interference: cost is a matter of cost and not the quantum, and in the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this Court would not delve deeper into the quantum of costs.ratio¶¶31
No infirmity, much less any perversity, was found in the impugned order that would call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the impugned order was upheld and the petition dismissed.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi, CM(M) 1864/2024, decided 14.11.2025 (Girish Kathpalia, J.) - Petition under Article 227 against trial court's order dated 10.11.2023 restoring the respondent's (NBCC) Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which had been dismissed in default on 19.11.2022 owing to counsel's illness, restored with costs of Rs. 7,500/- though the restoration application was filed after about seven months and without a formal delay-condonation application. Held: (i) no formal application for condonation of delay is required in filing any application or appeal; if the record satisfies the court about the circumstances leading to the delay, the court may condone the delay and adjudicate the main application; (ii) disputes should be decided on merits and not defaults, and defaults must be condoned where the defaulting party can compensate the other side; (iii) cost is a matter of cost and not the quantum, and the Article 227 jurisdiction does not delve into the quantum of costs; (iv) no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order. Impugned order upheld; petition dismissed.

¶1

$~60

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

¶4

- CM(M) 1864/2024

¶5

M/S RICHA CONSTRUCTIONS CO .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee and Ms. Srija Choudhary, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

M/S NBCC (INDIA) LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Advocate ( through videoconferencing ).

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶10

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶11

Petitioner has assailed order dated 10.11.2023 of the learned trial court, whereby Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, filed by the present respondent, which had been dismissed in default on 19.11.2022, were restored. I have heard learned counsel for both sides.

¶12

Broadly speaking, the case set up by the present respondent before the trial court was that on 19.11.2022, counsel for the present respondent could not appear on account of her ill health and thereafter, the present respondent remained unaware about dismissal of the Objections in default. It is only in the month of January, 2023 that the present respondent came to know about

¶13

CM(M) 1864/2024

¶14

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶15

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.11.14 18:13:17 -08'00'

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2025 18:44:42

¶18

the dismissal of the Objections in default, so moved an application for restoration of the Objections, which application was allowed by way of order impugned in this petition.

¶19

The only objection against the impugned order raised by the present petitioner is that the application for restoration of Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed beyond the time prescribed by law and without any application seeking condonation of delay. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that keeping in mind the object behind the Commercial Courts Act, where a party is not diligent, he is not entitled to any relief. It is argued that the timelines laid down by the legislature have to be strictly adhered to and in the present case, there being a delay of about seven months in filing the restoration application, the delay ought not to have been condoned without a formal application for delay condonation.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent supports the impugned order, taking me through the same.

¶21

To begin with, the restoration per se of the Objections is not opposed, since the dismissal in default was on account of illness of the erstwhile counsel. What is opposed by learned counsel for petitioner is that without there being formal application for condonation of delay, the court ought not to have entertained the restoration application especially because the present respondent is not an individual lay litigant, but a public sector undertaking.

¶22

As reflected from the impugned order and not disputed by either side,

Page 2 of 4 pages

CM(M) 1864/2024

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2025 18:44:42

¶28

on 14.09.2022, which was the date prior to the date of dismissal of the Objections in default, the erstwhile counsel for the present respondent submitted before the trial court that she had not been keeping well and would return the brief. Going by that submission, the learned trial court found no reason to disbelieve that on 19.11.2022, counsel for the present respondent could not appear on account of illness. The learned trial court considered that circumstance as a reasonable explanation for default. On this, there is no dispute from the side of petitioner also.

¶29

The issue raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner, being a public sector undertaking, ought to have filed a formal application seeking condonation of delay of seven months in filing the restoration application.

¶30

In my considered view, there is no requirement of a formal application for condonation of delay in filing any application or appeal. If from record, the court is satisfied about the circumstances that led to delay, the court can certainly condone the delay and adjudicate upon the main application. It is the cardinal principle of justice that disputes should be decided on merits and not defaults; where the party in default can be made to compensate the other side, the default must be condoned. In the present case also, the restoration application was allowed subject to costs.

¶31

But as regards costs, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the same is a very meagre amount of Rs. 7,500/- only. Cost is a matter of cost and not the quantum. Even otherwise, in the jurisdiction under Article 227

CM(M) 1864/2024

Page 3 of 4 pages

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2025 18:44:42

¶37

of the Constitution of India, this Court would not delve deeper into the quantum of costs.

¶38

In view of above discussion, I am unable to find any infirmity, much less any perversity in the impugned order that would call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So, the impugned order is upheld and the petition is dismissed.

¶39

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4
GIRISH afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626c
acca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID -
7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
KATHPALIA serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c4879
65ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.11.14 18:12:40 -08'00'

¶40

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶41

NOVEMBER 14, 2025/ dr

¶42

CM(M) 1864/2024

¶43

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶44

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 4.11.2025 18:44:42

M/S Richa Constructions Co. v. M/S Nbcc (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Richa Constructions Co. v. M/S Nbcc (India) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashish Kapoor Vs Sangeeta Mehta

Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board Vs Mahanagar Delhi Bhawan Evam Anya Sanniraman Mazdoor Sangh

Vikramjit Chopra and Anr. Vs Ravi Chopra

Ritu Chawla Vs Manju

Sumit Goel Vs Amit Goel and Others

Megha Shingla Vs Kunal Shingla

Vijender Tanwar Vs Girwar (Now Deceased) through Agent/Legal Representative Anand Tyagi & Anr.

M S Ec Constructions P Ltd. Vs Neeraj Zutshi and Anr.

Ashish Kapoor Vs Sangeeta Mehta

Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board Vs Mahanagar Delhi Bhawan Evam Anya Sanniraman Mazdoor Sangh

Vikramjit Chopra and Anr. Vs Ravi Chopra

Nazra Khatoon Vs Mohd. Zafar & Ors.

Cg Power and Industrial Solutions Limited Vs Indusind Bank & Ors.

Sh Jeet Ram @ Ajit Singh (Since Deceased) through Lrs and Anr. Vs Rural Social Welfare Educational Society and Anr.