Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28/08/2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: NLC India Limited (Petitioner/Appellant), a Government of India Enterprise, versus China Datang Technologies & Engineering Co. Ltd. (Respondent).
  • Background: The dispute originated from an arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (O.A.No.493 of 2020). The contract’s arbitration clause provided a three‑member tribunal, but the Court appointed Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi (Retd.) as Sole Arbitrator on 27.10.2020.
  • Arbitral Award (09.11.2022): The award held the termination of the contract by NLC to be legal, entitled NLC to invoke the Performance Bank Guarantee for Rs.55,65,00,000. The Respondent’s Claim Nos. IV and V were allowed for a total of Rs.5,10,00,000; all other claims and counter‑claims were rejected.
  • Subsequent Litigation: NLC filed Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No.333 of 2023 under Section 34; the Respondent filed Arb.O.P. (Com.Div.) No.141 of 2023. A Single Judge, by order dated 28.11.2025, set aside the arbitral award in entirety, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) because the dispute was an international commercial arbitration.
  • Original Side Appeals: NLC filed C.M.P.Nos.16703 & 16708 of 2026 seeking condonation of an 87‑day delay in filing the appeals (the statutory period being 60 days from receipt of the certified copy of the impugned order).
  • Reasons for Delay (as pleaded by NLC):
  • Certified copy of the impugned order obtained on 05.01.2026; appeal required to be filed by 08.03.2026.
  • As a public sector undertaking, NLC needed a legal opinion from its advocates – took about four weeks.
  • Subsequent internal approvals required – took about eight weeks.
  • Parallel proceedings before the Supreme Court (Arbitration Application No.69 of 2024) were pending and disposed on 11.05.2026, granting liberty to seek remedy under Section 37.
  • A 31‑day summer vacation of the Madras High Court (01.05.2026 to 31.05.2026) further delayed filing.
  • Respondent’s Opposition: Argued that public‑sector status does not confer any special privilege, that the web copy of the order was available immediately, and that internal processes cannot justify the delay. Relied on precedents where delays of 95 and 108 days were not condoned.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • Length of delay is not decisive; the court must assess whether the explanation is bona‑fide and satisfactory.
  • The matter involved complex questions of jurisdiction under Section 11(6) and substantial financial stakes (over Rs.55 crore).
  • The explanations – obtaining a certified copy, legal opinion, internal approvals, pending Supreme Court case, and the court’s vacation – were deemed reasonable and not wholly unreasonable.
  • Cited authorities: Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Bhilwara v. Labour Court (2009), Project Director, National Highways v. A. Padmini (2024), Project Director, National Highways v. A. Rajeswari (2024), and Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers (2021), distinguishing the present case on the basis of a specific, bona‑fide explanation.

Final Outcome

  • The Madras High Court condoned the 87‑day delay in filing the Original Side Appeals.
  • C.M.P.Nos.16073 and 16708 of 2026 are allowed, and the appeals may proceed on their merits.
  • No costs were awarded to either party.
  • The Registry is directed to number the appeals accordingly.

Topics: Arbitration, Delay Condonation