$~34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010463962026 + FAO (COMM) 288/2026 SWAMI SHARADDHANAND COLLEGE .....Appellant Through: Mr Vikas Kumar Bhardwaj/Ms Lydia Moses, Advocates versus NARESH KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR O R D E R % 25.09.2026 CM APPL. 66846-47/2026 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. FAO (COMM) 288/2026, CM APPL. 66845/2026 1. The present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the Order dated 13.08.2026, passed by the learned District Judge, Rohini Courts in OMP(COMM) 19/2026. 2. Vide Order dated 13.08.2026 the learned District Judge has dismissed the Petition filed by the Appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the Award dated 20.03.2025 on the ground that the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed beyond the maximum time This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 12:10:41 prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. 3. Facts of the case reveals that vide Order dated 18.01.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in ARB.P. 1013/2023, Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. It is stated that the learned Arbitrator passed an Award against the Appellant on 20.03.2025. A Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 5010/2026, was filed by the Appellant before this Court challenging the Award dated 20.03.2025. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 16.04.2026 and the Court observed that “If the petitioner so desires may avail appropriate remedy as available in law.” Thereafter, the Appellant filed OMP(COMM.) 19/2026 before the District Court along with an application seeking condonation of delay of 319 days. 4. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act stipulates that an application challenging an arbitral award may be filed within three months from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award. The said provision further provides an additional time of 30 days where the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the prescribed period of three months, but not thereafter. 5. The Apex Court, in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470, has held that the words “but not thereafter” contained in the proviso to Section 34(3) amount to an express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby placing an absolute outer limit on the power of the Court to condone delay beyond the maximum prescribed limited of three months and thirty days. The said position has subsequently been reiterated by the Apex Court in M/s Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 12:10:41 Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 455, wherein the Apex Court has held that the period of three months prescribed under Section 34(3) can be extended only by a further period of thirty days on sufficient cause being shown, and no further extension can be granted thereafter. 6. The Award was passed on 20.03.2025 and was served on the Appellant on the same day. Taking 20.03.2025 as the terminus quo, the application challenging the Award ought to have been filed on or before 19.06.2025. Even the grace period of 30 days ended on 18.07.2025. It is pertinent to note that W.P.(C) 5010/2026 was filed in February, 2026 and, therefore, the observation made by this Court in the said Writ Petition that “If the petitioner so desires may avail appropriate remedy as available in law”, is of no avail to the Appellant as the Court exercising power under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has no power to condone the delay beyond the maximum permissible limit of three months plus thirty days as provided in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. 7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the Order dated 13.08.2026, passed by the learned District Judge, Rohini Courts in OMP(COMM.) 19/2026. 8. Resultantly, the Appeal is dismissed along with the pending Applications, if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 Rahul This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 12:10:41