Supreme Court dismisses plea for condonation of delay in substitution of arbitrator; holds no sufficient cause shown for five-day delay.

Case Name: Tricolor Hotels Limited v. Dinesh Jain and Others

Date of Judgment: 19 September 2025

Citation: SLP (Civil) No. 4008 of 2023

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Narasimha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Chandurkar

Held: The Court upheld the Delhi High Court’s refusal to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, observing that no “sufficient cause” had been established. Even though the delay was only five days, the explanation of “technical glitches” in counsel’s email account was ambiguous and unconvincing. Discretion under Article 136 cannot be invoked where the High Court’s view is neither perverse nor unjust.

Summary: The petitioner company entered into share purchase agreements in 2006 containing an arbitration clause. A sole arbitrator was appointed in 2010 with consent of parties but recused himself on 27.07.2015 via email. The petitioner filed an application under Section 15(2) on 01.08.2018 seeking substitution of the arbitrator and later applied for condonation of delay. The High Court rejected the plea on 09.11.2022, holding absence of sufficient cause. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that limitation began in August 2015 (date of knowledge) and alternatively that the thirty-day statutory period under Section 11(5) should be excluded. It was contended that at worst, the delay was five days, warranting condonation. The respondents opposed, urging that the limitation commenced on the date of recusal and that petitioner was not diligent. The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court’s reasoning, emphasizing that arbitration proceedings must be pursued diligently and expeditiously.

Decision: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The order of the High Court refusing condonation of delay was affirmed