Casual Absence Of Govt Officials Not “Sufficient Cause” To Condone Delay In Challenging Arbitral Award: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board seeking condonation of delay in filing objections against an arbitral award passed in favour of HCL Infotech Ltd., holding that bureaucratic delays and internal movement of files do not constitute sufficient cause for delay.

Rejecting the State's contention, the Court remarked that: “The Decision with regard to filing of objections, approval whereof ultimately came from the Chairman of the applicant/objector, certainly cannot be taken by menial officials like Junior Engineer and Computer Operator.”

Justice Sandeep Sharma noted that: “An attempt has been made by the applicant/objector to set up a case that on account of casual absence of aforesaid officials of the department, matter could not be processed for filing the objections.”

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking condonation of delay in filing objections to an arbitral award passed in favour of HCL Infotech Ltd.

The board contended that as the Junior engineer who was handling the case was busy with election duty assigned by the District Administration in Shimla, the process of preparing and filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act got delayed and could not be completed within time.

Further, the Board submitted that the matter was placed before multiple authorities for approval. However, as the managing director was on leave, the objections were delayed.

The court remarked that the board did not give sufficient reasons to explain the delay and why it did not act promptly within the first 90 days after receiving the award.

The Court reiterated that the time limit for challenging an arbitral award is three months after receipt of the award and is extendable by thirty days only if the Court is satisfied that there was sufficient cause in the delay.

Thus, the Court concluded that the board did not give sufficient explanation for the delay, and the board engineer who had signed the agreement on behalf of HPSEB was competent to file the objections and did not require approval from multiple levels of bureaucracy.

Case Name: Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited  V/s HCL Infotech Limited

Case No.: OMP (M) No. 55 of 2024 in CARBC No.13 of 2025

Date of Decision: 10.10.2025

For the petitioner: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr.Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi and Mr. Amitesh Mishra, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order