S.B Transport Company vs Steel Authority Of India Limited on 12 February, 2026

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.02.2026

+ ARB.P. 275/2026, I.A. 3907/2026 (Ex.) & I.A. 3908/2026
(Delay of 2 years and 83 days in Re-filing the petition)

S.B TRANSPORT COMPANY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Sethi, Mr. Chitresh
Mittal and Ms. Vaishali
Chaudhary, Advocates
versus

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (ORAL)

I.A. 3908/2026 (Delay of 2 years and 83 days in Re-filing the
petition)

1. The Objection Petition being ARB. P. 275/2026 ["present
Petition"], filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks the appointment of Sole Arbitrator.
2. The Petitioner/Applicant, by way of an Application dated
17.12.2025 being I.A. 3908/2026 ["present Application"], seeks
condonation of delay of 2 years and 83 days in re-filing the present
Petition.
3. The present Petition was instituted on 05.05.2023, however, it
never came to be listed since the objections raised with regards to the

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 275/2026 Page 1 of 6
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:17.02.2026
14:56:04
defects were never cured by the Petitioner. Subsequently, the present
Application came to be filed only in December, 2025 seeking
condonation of delay in re-filing. This Court deems it appropriate to
reproduce the entire Application:
"1. That the Applicant is the Petitioner in the above-captioned
matter, which is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Court.
2. That the Petitioner had filed the present petition under Section
11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking
appointment of an Arbitrator. The said petition was initially filed
vide Diary No. 776983/2023 dated 18.05.2023.
3. That objections were raised by the Registry on 29.05.2023.
Thereafter, this Hon'ble Court remained closed on account of
summer vacations from 03 .06.2023 to 30.06.2023.
4. That from 01.07.2023 to 30.09.2023, the Petitioner Company
did not have any authorised representative available in Delhi to
take necessary steps for re-filing the petition. Consequently, the
Director of the Company, Mr. Shamal Singh, was authorised to
pursue the matter.
5. That unfortunately, during this period, the wife of Mr. Shamal
Singh was diagnosed with cancer. Due to her serious medical
condition and on medical advice, Mr. Shamal Singh was required
to devote his time to her treatment and care, which resulted in an
unavoidable delay for the period from 01.10.2023 to 31.08.2025
and after due to serious condition the wife of Mr. Sahamal Singh
was passed away.
6. That thereafter, in September 2025, the counsel for the Petitioner
was admitted to hospital due to typhoid and was unable to attend
Court matters. He was discharged only after the Diwali vacations
and was advised complete bed rest for a further period of fifteen
(15) days.
7. That after the counsel's recovery, the Petitioner met with the
counsel and necessary steps were taken for re-filing the present
petition.
8. That due to the aforesaid bona fide, unavoidable, and compelling
circumstances, a delay of 2 years and 79 days has occurred in re-
filing the petition after removal of Registry objections.
9. That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and has
occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the Petitioner.
If the delay is not condoned, the Petitioner shall suffer grave and
irreparable loss, whereas no prejudice shall be caused to the
Respondent.
10.That the present application is being filed bona fide and in the
interest of justice."

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 275/2026 Page 2 of 6
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:17.02.2026
14:56:04
4. A perusal of the said present Application reveals that the
reasons furnished therein are wholly bald, unsupported by any
material, and bereft of documentary evidence. It indicates a
lackadaisical approach of the Petitioners in curing the defects within
the proper time frame, which is, under the prevalent Rules applicable,
limited to a maximum time period of 30 days in aggregate after
objections with respect to defects are raised.
5. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to emphasise upon
the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, wherein under
Chapter IV, Clause 3, a clear procedural framework is prescribed for
curing defects in pleadings and documents.
6. It provides where any filing is found to be defective, the Deputy
Registrar or Assistant Registrar is required to return the same with
objections, granting the filing party limited opportunities to rectify the
defects, namely, seven days at a time subject to an outer limit of thirty
days in aggregate. Non-compliance within the said period entails
procedural consequences, for instance, the matter may be placed
before the Court for dismissal for non-prosecution, or, if refiled
beyond the permissible period, can be entertained only upon an
application seeking condonation of delay. The said Rule reads as
under:
"3. Defective pleading/ document.-
(a) If on scrutiny, the pleading/ document is found defective, the
Deputy Registrar/ Assistant Registrar, Incharge of the Filing
Counter, shall specify the objections, a copy of which will be kept
for the Court Record, and return for amendment and re-filing
within a time not exceeding 7 days at a time and 30 days in
aggregate.
(b) If the pleading/ document is not taken back for amendment
within the time allowed under sub-rule (a), it shall be registered and
listed before the Court for its dismissal for non-prosecution.

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 275/2026 Page 3 of 6
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:17.02.2026
14:56:04
(c) If the pleading/ document is filed beyond the time allowed
under sub- rule (a) the pleading/ document must be accompanied
with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing of the said
pleading/ document.
(d) Any party aggrieved by any order made by the Registrar under
this Rule may, within fifteen days of the making of such order,
appeal against it to the Judge in Chambers."

7. The said Rule has come up for consideration in numerous cases,
wherein the courts have consistently held that although the rigour
applicable to initial filing and re-filing may differ, such distinction
does not imply that the Rules prescribing a specific period for re-filing
are rendered otiose. Delay in filing undoubtedly keeps the finality of a
decision in abeyance. Similarly, delay in re-filing, if not viewed with
equal seriousness, perpetuates uncertainty. A delay of 2 years and 83
days in re-filing the present petition is egregious and cannot be
condoned on any principle of leniency.
8. A Division Bench of this Court in DDA v. Durga Construction
Co.1, in a similar scenario concerning delay in re-filing, made the
following observations:
"20. It follows from the above that once an application or an appeal
has been filed within the time prescribed, the question of
condoning any delay in re-filing would have to be considered by
the Court in the context of the explanation given for such delay. In
absence of any specific statute that bars the jurisdiction of the
Court in considering the question of delay in re-filing, it cannot be
accepted that the courts are powerless to entertain an application
where the delay in its re-filing crosses the time limit specified for
filing the application.
21. Although, the courts would have the jurisdiction to condone the
delay, the approach in exercising such jurisdiction cannot be liberal
and the conduct of the applicant will have to be tested on the anvil
of whether the applicant acted with due diligence and dispatch. The
applicant would have to show that the delay was on account of
reasons beyond the control of the applicant and could not be
avoided despite all possible efforts by the applicant...
1
2013 SCC OnLine Del 4451
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
ARB.P. 275/2026 Page 4 of 6
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:17.02.2026
14:56:04
*****
...."
(emphasis added)

9. To augment, a Division Bench of this Court in Shivaai
Industries Private Limited v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, while
considering and upholding the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in a
similar circumstance involving a delay of 427 days in re-filing,
emphasized the aspect of necessity to explain the delay in re-filing.
10. In the present case, the factual narration indicates that the date
of one incident immediately follows an earlier incident and the same
appears to be nothing but a calculated attempt to justify the inordinate
delay in re-filing the present Petition, and therefore does not inspire
the confidence of this Court.
11. The total delay in re-filing amounts to a substantial period of 2
years and 83 days. This court is of the opinion that explanations
sought to be advanced by way of the present Application are neither
credible nor satisfactory and are completely inadequate, being devoid
of any cogent reasons.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the present Application is rejected.

ARB.P. 275/2026, I.A. 3907/2026 (Ex.)
13. In view of the foregoing, the present Petition along with, any
other application(s), also stands dismissed.
14. There shall be no orders as to cost.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

FEBRUARY 12, 2026/rk/kr/dj

2019 SCC OnLine Del 10672

By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date:17.02.2026 14:56:04