Glitch in e-Mail : Delay in Arbitration Petition Not Condoned
Technical glitch in email account fails to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay, Supreme Court rules.
News Report:
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, refusing to condone the delay in filing proceedings under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case revolved around Tricolor Hotels Limited's petition seeking the substitution of a sole arbitrator following his recusal.
The petitioner, Tricolor Hotels Limited, attributed the five-day delay in filing the petition to a technical glitch in their counsel's email account, which purportedly prevented timely access to an important communication from the sole arbitrator. However, both the High Court and the Supreme Court found this explanation insufficient and ambiguous.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 19, 2025, observed that the right to apply for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator accrued immediately when the sole arbitrator recused himself on July 27, 2015. The petitioner argued that they became aware of the email only in August 2015, claiming a three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Despite this, the petition was filed on August 1, 2018, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted subsequently on September 22, 2018.
In its defense, Tricolor Hotels Limited cited the need for expeditious resolution of disputes through arbitration, referencing previous Supreme Court judgments to bolster its case. The petitioner contended that the delay was minimal and justified due to the technical issues experienced by their counsel.
However, the respondents, led by Senior Advocate Vikas Dhawan, opposed the appeal, arguing that the petition was indeed time-barred and lacked a substantial cause for delay. They emphasized the High Court's assessment that no sufficient cause was demonstrated by the petitioner, and the discretion not to condone the delay was exercised appropriately.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar, concluded that the High Court's decision was neither perverse nor caused manifest injustice, thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by Tricolor Hotels Limited.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to uphold procedural timelines in arbitration cases, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory limitations for the swift resolution of commercial disputes.
Bottom Line:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Petition under Section 15(2) for substitution of sole arbitrator - Delay in filing such petition - Technical glitch in email account cited as reason for delay - High Court's refusal to condone delay upheld by Supreme Court as no sufficient cause was shown.
Statutory provision(s): Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 15(2), Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137
Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2781390
