Court had power to condone eight days’ delay, which was less than thirty days, in terms of proviso to sub-section (3) to S. 34 of the 1996 Act. In this case, in application seeking condonation of delay, it was inter alia stated that after receiving a copy of award appellant had engaged an empanelled advocate and records pertaining to arbitration case were constructed and examined. Short delay had also occurred as sanctions and approvals were required from higher/competent authority. Given aforesaid background and short condonable delay which had occurred, High Court and Additional District Judge, held, were not justified in refusing to condone delay. Moreover, objections under S. 34 of the 1996 Act did require consideration and in-depth examination and should not have been dismissed without proper and full application of mind by the Court. Hence, delay was condoned and matter was remitted to Court concerned to hear objections to the award afresh on merits, in accordance with law.
[HUDA v. Mehta Construction Co., (2022) 5 SCC 432]