Public Works Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi v. M/S Shyam Sunder Tyagi

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. JULY 20, 2026/gunn

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + O.M.P. (COMM) 428/2025 & I.A. 25876/2025 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Panel Counsel, GNCTD. versus M/S SHYAM SUNDER TYAGI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Samarth Choudhary, Ms. Adhya Singh Tomar and Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMMENT(ORAL) % 20.07.2026 I.A. 25875/2025 (Delay in Filing) & I.A. 25878/2025 (Delay in refiling) in O.M.P. (COMM) 428/2025 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 assailing the Arbitral Award dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the claim preferred by the Respondent was partly allowed. 2. Along with the said petition, the Petitioner has also filed an application (I.A. 25875/2025) seeking condonation of delay of 41 days in filing this petition. However, as per the record, the petition was initially filed on 11.05.2025, which means there is a delay of 26 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. The petition is also accompanied by an application (I.A. 25878/2025) seeking 1 "the Act", hereinafter condonation of 122 days (inadvertently written as 155 days) delay in re-filing. 3. The incorrect computation of days in the applications itself reflects the casual manner in which the present proceedings have been pursued by the Petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. He submits that the same occurred on account of circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner and therefore, deserves to be condoned in the interest of justice. 5. He further submits that after receipt of the arbitral award dated 15.01.2025, the matter was placed before the concerned authorities for their consideration. According to the Petitioner, some time was taken in obtaining legal opinion and the necessary departmental approvals before the petition could be filed. 6. As regards to the delay in re-filing, he submits that the same occurred on account of the voluminous record as well as the change of the Executive Engineer in the concerned Division. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has opposed both the applications for filing as well as re-filing. He submits that the Petitioner has failed to show any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing. 8. He submits that the reasons being put forward by the Petitioner are merely administrative in nature and hence, cannot be treated as "sufficient cause". He also points out that the Petitioner has not explained the delay for the entire period of delay of 122 days period taken in re-filing. 9. He further submits that the Petitioner is not pursuing the matter with due diligence and therefore, no case is made out for condonation of delay either in filing or re-filing. 10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 11. Before examining the explanation offered by the Petitioner, it would be apt to lay down the legal position with regard to the timeline given for filing an objection under Section 34 of the Act. 12. Under Section 34(3) of the Act, a petition challenging an arbitral award is required to be filed within 90 days. After the said period, this Court can condone a delay of further thirty days and that too, only if sufficient cause is shown for not approaching the Court within time. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the expression "sufficient cause" in several decisions including Shivamma (Dead) through LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board2, whereby it was held that while the Court must adopt a justice-oriented approach, the 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969 explanation offered for being a "sufficient cause" must be genuine and should show that the party acted with due diligence. Mere negligence or a casual approach cannot be accepted as a "sufficient cause". Similar is the view ta