22-IA-3650-2025.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3650 OF 2026 IN COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025 M/s Manav Gangwani ...Applicant In the matter between M/s Manav Gangwani ...Petitioner Versus JGD Couture …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36048 OF 2025 IN COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025 M/s Manav Gangwani ...Applicant In the matter between M/s Manav Gangwani ...Petitioner Versus JGD Couture …Respondent Mr. Mudit Ruhella (through VC), with Shikhar Sharma, Siddhant Sawhney, Madhuri Negi, Avanti Kher and Sanskruti More, i/b Auris Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Mehta, with Sharmila A and Abvi Patel, i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co, for the Respondent. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 7th JULY 2026 P.C.: ARS 1/5 ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.07.08 19:18:48 +0530 22-IA-3650-2025.DOC INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3650 OF 2026 IN COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025: 1. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act”) seeking setting aside of the Award dated 16th November 2024 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. 2. The Award in question was passed on 16th November 2024. Its copy was delivered to the Applicant on 17th November 2024. Thus, Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was required to be filed on or before 16th February 2025. However, the Petitioner claimed, the Petitioner fell seriously ill on 10th February 2025 and was required to be rushed to a local hospital where the Petitioner was given treatment and advised rest for two weeks. Thus, there was delay of 27 days in filing the Petition beyond the prescribed period of three months. 3. An Affidavit in Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent controverting the assertions in the Application for condonation of delay. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 5. Mr. Ruhella, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that the assertions in the Application find support in the medical certificates which are annexed to the Application at Exhibit “A”. The dealy was ARS 2/5 22-IA-3650-2025.DOC neither intentional nor is the Application mala fide. Therefore, the delay deserves to be condoned. 6. In opposition to this, Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, submitted that, at best, the Applicant has ascribed a cause for the delay post the expiry of the initial three months period. However, no explanation has been offered to account for the delay from the date the period of limitation to file the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act began to run. 7. To lend support to this submission, Mr. Mehta placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRs Vs Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.1 In the said case, the Supreme Court has inter alia expounded that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal or application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of limitation, the delay in filing has to be explained by demonstrating the existence of a “sufficient cause” that resulted in such delay for both the prescribed period of limitation as well as the period after the expiry of limitation, up to the actual date of filing of such appeal or application, as the case may be, or to put it simply, an explanation has to be given for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of delay by recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969. ARS 3/5 22-IA-3650-2025.DOC 8. Banking upon the aforesaid pronouncement, Mr. Mehta submitted that, in view of the failure on the part of the Applicant to account for the delay for the prescribed period of three months, the Application cannot be countenanced. 9. The learned Counsel for the Applicant joined the issue by canvassing a submission that though the Applicant has not specifically accounted for the delay for the prescribed period of three months, yet, it has been categorically mentioned that since the Applicant is based at Delhi and the Petition was required to be filed before the jurisdictional Court at Mumbai, the delay occurred. 10. I have perused the averments in the Application. The claim of the Applicant that he took ill on 10th February 2025 finds support in the medical certificate annexed to the Application. The Applicant has also asserted that since the Petition was required to be filed in Mumbai and he is based at Delhi, the Applicant required time to identify and brief the Advocates based in Mumbai. 11. It is true, the delay for the entire period from which the period of limitation began to run is required to be explained. However, as the provisions contained in Section 34 impose a cap on the maximum period of delay which can be condoned by the Court, the obligation to explain each day’s delay during the prescribed period of three months cannot be construed too rigidly. Adequate material is placed on record ARS 4/5 22-IA-3650-2025.DOC by the Applicant to substantiate the claim that he was unwell and, therefore, could not take steps to file the petition. The reasons ascribed in the Application for condonation of delay appear to be justifiable. 12. As the Courts generally lean in favour of the condonation of the delay so as to advance the cause of substantive justice, and having regard to the period of delay, the Court is inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the Applicant. 13. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The Application stands allowed. (ii) The delay in preferring the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act stands condoned. ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025 AND INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36048 OF 2025: 14. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 15. Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 15th July 2026. 16. Mr. Gaurav Mehta, the learned Counsel, waives service of notice for the Respondent. 17. The learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks time to file a short Affidavit in Reply to the Interim Application for stay. 18. Let the Affidavit in Reply be filed within a period of one week. 19. Stand over to 15th July 2026, “High on Board”. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] ARS 5/5