NHAI versus Ram Prakash & Others Arb. Appeal No. of 2026 12.08.2026 Present: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Pooja Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Shubham Kashyap, Advocate for the respondents. OMP (M) No.306 of 2025 Applicant has preferred the accompanying appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act’). Since, the appeal has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the present application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay as occurred in filing the main appeal has been filed. In the application, the delay has been mentioned as 268 days, however, as per the report of the Registry, there is delay of about 364 days, as occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. The delay has been sought to be condoned on the ground that the counsel representing the applicant applied for the copy of the judgment dated 03.07.2024, on 12.12.2024 and the same was completed on 02.01.2025 and delivered to the applicant on 08.01.2025. It is the further case of the applicant that the disposal of the case, by the learned District Judge, was not within the knowledge of the applicant, as the counsel representing them has never intimated about the decision. In addition to this, it has also been pleaded that the judicial work of the applicant was being looked after by a Law firm as 362 cases were with the said firm. Later on, those cases were withdrawn from the said law firm namely M/s M.V. Kini & Co. and were allotted to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates, vide order dated 20.09.2023. It is the further case of the applicant that on closing of the year 2024-25, when the applicant inquired the firm about the pendency of the remaining cases with the firm, then the fact regarding disposal of the case has been brought to the knowledge of the applicant. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of the Project Director as well as letted dated 20.09.2023, written to M/s Nishaank Matto & Associates. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to condone the delay. When put to notice, the application has been contested by the respondents, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the inordinate delay. It has also been pleaded that the applicant is well resource corporate body with a dedicated legal cell and their failure to monitor the proceedings in the case is too short to consider the case for condonation of delay. Another preliminary objection has also been taken that the delay, in the present case, could not be explained by the applicant. In nut shell, negligence has been attributed to the applicant in pursuing the matter before the Court. So far as the stand taken by the applicant qua the fact that the cases were withdrawn from the firm, which earlier was pursuing the same and were assigned to another legal firm, is concerned, according to the non- applicant, it is the internal matter of the applicant and on the basis of the above, delay cannot be condoned. As such a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. Heard. It is not in dispute that the applicant being impersonal machinery, acts through the human agency and it is not in dispute that before filing the appeal, matter has to be dealt with at various levels. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5867 of 2015, titled as Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs & Others versus Union of India & Another, 2023 INSC 885, and prayed that while deciding application for condoning the delay, liberal approach has to be adopted. Relevant paragraph 36 of the judgment is reproduced as under : - “36. We can also profitably refer to Koting Lamkang (supra), cited by Mr. Sen, where the same Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court which decided University of Delhi (supra) was of the view that the impersonal nature of the State’s functioning should be given due regard, while ensuring that individual defaults are not nit-picked at the cost of collective interest. The relevant paragraphs read as follows: “7. But while concluding as above, it was necessary for the Court to also be conscious of the bureaucratic delay and the slow pace in reaching a government decision and the routine way of deciding whether the State should prefer an appeal against a judgment adverse to it. Even while observing that the law of limitation would harshly affect the party, the Court felt that the delay in the appeal filed by the State, should not be condoned.8. Regard should be had in similar such circumstances to the impersonal nature of the Government's functioning where individual officers may fail to act responsibly. This in turn, would result in injustice to the institutional interest of the State. If the appeal filed by the State are lost for individual default, those who are at fault, will not usually be individually affected.” (underlining ours, for emphasis) Although, in the reply to the application, it has been pleaded that the applicant remained negligent in pursuing the matter, but, the reply is totally silent about the object, which the applicant is going to achieve, in not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, had the applicant been not prevented to do so, by the reasons as stated in the application. Considering all these facts, the application is allowed and the delay, as occurred in filing the main appeal, is ordered to be condoned. The application stands disposed of. Arb. Appeal No. of 2026 Be registered. Admit. OMPST No.38116 of 2025 The application is considered and allowed. During the pendency of the appeal, the execution of the award dated 23.02.2023, passed in Case No.176 of 2020, by the Divisional Commissioner, exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the National Highways Act, 1956, is ordered to be stayed, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount, together with upto date interest, within a period of eight weeks. The application is disposed of. Modification/alteration/vacation on motion. (Virender Singh) Judge August 12, 2026 (ps)