Bombay High Court
MANAV GANGWANIversusJGD COUTURE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court allowed the application and condoned the delay in filing the Section 34 petition.
Summary
The petitioner sought condonation of a 27‑day delay in filing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an award dated 16 Nov 2024. The petition was due by 16 Feb 2025, but the petitioner fell seriously ill on 10 Feb 2025 and was unable to file until after the deadline. The respondent argued that, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioner must explain the delay for the entire limitation period, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivamma v Karnataka Housing Board. The court examined the medical certificate, the petitioner’s residence in Delhi versus the jurisdiction in Mumbai, and held that the reasons amounted to a sufficient cause. Relying on the principle of substantive justice and the discretionary power to condone delay, the court allowed the application and condoned the delay.
Issues considered
- Whether a delay of 27 days in filing a Section 34 petition can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the petitioner must account for the delay for the entire limitation period from the date the limitation began.
- Whether medical illness and logistical difficulties constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34
- Limitation Act — s. 5
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 34 petition
- Condonation of delay
- Limitation Act
- Medical illness
- Jurisdiction
- Substantive justice
Judgment
22-IA-3650-2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3650 OF 2026
IN
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025
M/s Manav Gangwani ...Applicant
In the matter between
M/s Manav Gangwani ...Petitioner
Versus
JGD Couture …Respondent
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA WITH
SANKPAL
Digitally signed by
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 36048 OF 2025
ARUN RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.07.08
19:18:48 +0530
IN
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025
M/s Manav Gangwani ...Applicant
In the matter between
M/s Manav Gangwani ...Petitioner
Versus
JGD Couture …Respondent
Mr. Mudit Ruhella (through VC), with Shikhar Sharma, Siddhant
Sawhney, Madhuri Negi, Avanti Kher and Sanskruti More, i/b
Auris Legal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Mehta, with Sharmila A and Abvi Patel, i/b Wadia Ghandy
& Co, for the Respondent.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 7th JULY 2026
P.C.:
ARS 1/5
22-IA-3650-2025.DOC
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3650 OF 2026 IN COMM ARBITRATION
PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025:
1. This is an Application for condonation of delay of 27 days in filing
the Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (“the Arbitration Act”) seeking setting aside of the Award dated
16th November 2024 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator.
2. The Award in question was passed on 16th November 2024. Its
copy was delivered to the Applicant on 17 th November 2024. Thus,
Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was required to be filed
on or before 16th February 2025. However, the Petitioner claimed, the
Petitioner fell seriously ill on 10 th February 2025 and was required to be
rushed to a local hospital where the Petitioner was given treatment and
advised rest for two weeks. Thus, there was delay of 27 days in filing
the Petition beyond the prescribed period of three months.
3. An Affidavit in Reply has been filed on behalf of the Respondent
controverting the assertions in the Application for condonation of delay.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned
Counsel for the Respondent.
5. Mr. Ruhella, the learned Counsel for the Applicant, submitted that
the assertions in the Application find support in the medical certificates
which are annexed to the Application at Exhibit “A”. The dealy was
ARS 2/5
22-IA-3650-2025.DOC
neither intentional nor is the Application mala fide. Therefore, the delay
deserves to be condoned.
6. In opposition to this, Mr. Mehta, the learned Counsel for the
Respondent, submitted that, at best, the Applicant has ascribed a cause
for the delay post the expiry of the initial three months period.
However, no explanation has been offered to account for the delay from
the date the period of limitation to file the Petition under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act began to run.
7. To lend support to this submission, Mr. Mehta placed reliance on
the judgment in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRs Vs Karnataka
Housing Board and Ors.1 In the said case, the Supreme Court has inter
alia expounded that under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the
purpose of seeking condonation of delay in the filing of an appeal or
application, as the case may be, beyond the stipulated period of
limitation, the delay in filing has to be explained by demonstrating the
existence of a “sufficient cause” that resulted in such delay for both the
prescribed period of limitation as well as the period after the expiry of
limitation, up to the actual date of filing of such appeal or application,
as the case may be, or to put it simply, an explanation has to be given
for the entire duration from the date when the clock of limitation began
to tick, up until the date of actual filing, for seeking condonation of
delay by recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1969.
ARS 3/5
22-IA-3650-2025.DOC
8. Banking upon the aforesaid pronouncement, Mr. Mehta
submitted that, in view of the failure on the part of the Applicant to
account for the delay for the prescribed period of three months, the
Application cannot be countenanced.
9. The learned Counsel for the Applicant joined the issue by
canvassing a submission that though the Applicant has not specifically
accounted for the delay for the prescribed period of three months, yet, it
has been categorically mentioned that since the Applicant is based at
Delhi and the Petition was required to be filed before the jurisdictional
Court at Mumbai, the delay occurred.
10. I have perused the averments in the Application. The claim of the
Applicant that he took ill on 10th February 2025 finds support in the
medical certificate annexed to the Application. The Applicant has also
asserted that since the Petition was required to be filed in Mumbai and
he is based at Delhi, the Applicant required time to identify and brief
the Advocates based in Mumbai.
11. It is true, the delay for the entire period from which the period of
limitation began to run is required to be explained. However, as the
provisions contained in Section 34 impose a cap on the maximum
period of delay which can be condoned by the Court, the obligation to
explain each day’s delay during the prescribed period of three months
cannot be construed too rigidly. Adequate material is placed on record
ARS 4/5
22-IA-3650-2025.DOC
by the Applicant to substantiate the claim that he was unwell and,
therefore, could not take steps to file the petition. The reasons ascribed
in the Application for condonation of delay appear to be justifiable.
12. As the Courts generally lean in favour of the condonation of the
delay so as to advance the cause of substantive justice, and having
regard to the period of delay, the Court is inclined to exercise discretion
in favour of the Applicant.
13. Hence, the following order:
:ORDER:
(i) The Application stands allowed.
(ii) The delay in preferring the Petition under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act stands condoned.
ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 8494 OF 2025 AND INTERIM
APPLICATION (L) NO. 36048 OF 2025:
14. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
15. Issue notice to the Respondent returnable on 15th July 2026.
16. Mr. Gaurav Mehta, the learned Counsel, waives service of notice
for the Respondent.
17. The learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks time to file a short
Affidavit in Reply to the Interim Application for stay.
18. Let the Affidavit in Reply be filed within a period of one week.
19. Stand over to 15th July 2026, “High on Board”.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 5/5
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.