ARB. A. (COMM.) 72/2025 p. 1 $~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011064252025 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 72/2025, I.A. 32968/2025, I.A. 32969/2025 M/S SHAF BROADCAST PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, Adv. versus DOORDARSHAN A CONSTITUENT OF PRASAR BHARTI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, Ms. Shreya Sharma, Mr. Nishant Kandpal and Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv. for R1. Ms. Priyanka Goswami, Ms. Anusuya Sadhu Sinha, Ms. Khyati Gulati, Advs for R2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA ORDER(ORAL) % 12.10.2026 1. The present appeal is prima facie barred by limitation having been instituted beyond the prescribed period of 60 days under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961. 2. The impugned order was passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on 23.06.2025, whereas the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was initially instituted only on 21.09.2025, i.e., after the expiry of the prescribed limitation 1 “Act” hereinafter ARB. A. (COMM.) 72/2025 p. 2 period of 60 days under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, resulting in a delay of 30 days in the initial filing itself. 3. The Appellant has preferred an application seeking condonation of 61 days' delay in refiling the appeal without seeking condonation of the delay occasioned in its original institution or furnishing any sufficient cause explaining the same. 4. Furthermore, the reasons advanced by the Appellant namely, the voluminous nature of the arbitral record, intervening court holidays and unspecified medical exigencies are vague, general and unsupported by material particulars and in any event, do not satisfactorily explain the delay in the original institution of the appeal. 5. Accordingly, in the absence of any sufficient cause, the present appeal is dismissed as time-barred. OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J OCTOBER 12, 2026/at