Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Royal India Technoprojects Limited

1. This appeal assails orders dated 5 September 2023 and 27 November 2025, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts-03) South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi[1].

2. An arbitral award, rendered in arbitral proceedings between the appellant and the respondent, was challenged by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] by way of OMP (Comm) 35/2023 before the learned Commercial Court. On 5 September 2023, the said OMP was dismissed as withdrawn by learned Counsel for the appellant. The order dated 5 September 2023 “learned Commercial Court”, hereinafter “1996 Act”, hereinafter read thus: “Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that he has been authorized by the petitioner to state that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the present petition with liberty to take appropriate legal recourse. The present petition may, thus, be dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty as aforesaid. Statement of Sh. Diptimaan Acharya, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, to the above effect, has been separately recorded. Heard. In view of the aforsaid, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse.”

3. 575 days after the aforesaid order was passed, the appellant filed Misc DJ 246/2025 seeking restoration of the OMP.

4. In the first place, the said restoration application was not even maintainable, as an order passed disposing of a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is only appealable under Section 37 thereof.

5. Besides, the only explanation tendered for filing the restoration application 575 days after the Section 34 petition had been disposed of was that the Counsel for the appellant informed the appellant that he was required to re-file the petition in some other forum. This submission was apparently merely made for the sake of having the restoration application entertained, as it is not even the appellant’s case that, in terms of the purported advice given by its Counsel, the appellant moved any other forum.

6. The learned Commercial Court, by order dated 27 November 2025, dismissed the restoration application, observing that the appellant had miserably failed to assign any reason for delay in filing the restoration application. Administrative lethargy and laxity in the office of the appellant, it was noted, could not constitute a legitimate basis to condone delay as inordinate as 575 days.

7. The appellant has now preferred the present appeal challenging the orders dated 5 September 2023 and 27 November 2025 supra passed by the learned Commercial Court.

8. The appeal is accompanied by CM Appl. 30639/2026, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The application, which is all of five paragraphs, reads thus:

9. It is obvious that the appellant is least interested in prosecuting these proceedings. Court after Court have been moved merely for the sake of formality.

10. As there is no tenable explanation for the condonation of delay of 575 days in filing the restoration application before the learned Commercial Court which, even otherwise, was not maintainable in law, we decline to entertain any challenge to the order dated 5 September 2023, 809 days after the order has been passed.

11. The only challenge which is within time, therefore, is to the challenge to the order dated 27 November 2025, whereby the learned Commercial Court dismissed the restoration application on delay.

12. No sustainable ground for entertaining such a challenge exists. The application was itself not maintainable in the first instance. Moreover, the learned Commercial Court has correctly observed that there was no explanation worth the name for condonation of delay of 575 days.

13. We may note that, in commercial matters, the Supreme Court has held in Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Limited v. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited[3] and Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers & Contractors Pvt Ltd[4], that delay has to be viewed seriously and has to be completely explained with cogent material on record. The latitude which a Court may otherwise display while dealing with applications for condonation of delay in ordinary suits or appeals cannot be exercised while dealing with the commercial matters.