ARA38_24.doc opinion that when a group of appeals is to be filed, there can be a human error in failing to file all the appeals at one go. It cannot be said in the present case that GSL held back filing of the two appeals in order to gain something in the process. It is not as if some amounts were due and payable to GSL with interest and longer pendency of the appeals would eventually inure to the benefit of GSL in the context of the interest component. On the contrary, GSL is obliged to make payments and the subject appeals that were filed along with applications for condonation of delay pertained to the very question of interest sought to be raised against SHOFT. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the explanation tendered on behalf of GSL smacks of mala fide or that, such applications can be rejected as being without any justification. The Supreme Court, in its judgement in the case of Government of Maharashtra Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Private Limited (supra), has emphasized upon the requirement of speedy resolution of commercial disputes in the context of the Arbitration Act. In the said case, although the delay was only 131 days beyond the 60- day period provided for filing an appeal in the context of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as a matter of fact, the Supreme Court found that there was no explanation worth the name contained in the application for condonation of delay, beyond the usual statements regarding filepushing and administrative exigencies. It is
