Synopsis

The petitioner availed a loan of ₹7.80 crores from the respondent. after default, the lender issued notices under the loan agreement and eventually recalled the loan on 26.06.2018. arbitration was invoked on 06.01.2022. the petitioner argued that limitation started from expiry of 45 days from the first default notice dated 22.11.2016, making the claim time‑barred. the arbitral tribunal rejected this, holding that the loan agreement provided dual remedies – the lender could demand payment of defaulted instalments without recalling the loan, and the right to recall the entire loan arose only on 26.06.2018. the high court dismissed the section 34 petition, holding that the arbitrator’s interpretation was plausible, the limitation correctly computed from 26.06.2018 (extended by covid orders), and the moratorium under ibc was not raised before the arbitrator and did not vitiate the award.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan (Single Judge)

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: O.M.P. (COMM) 397/2024 (2026:DHC:4284)

Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 (setting aside arbitral award); Limitation Act, 1963 – Article 137 (limitation for arbitration); Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 14 (moratorium).

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

O.m.p. (comm) 397/2024

Sahayog micromanagement & ors. (petitioners) vs. National skill development corporation (respondent)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice avneesh jhingan

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 – section 34 (setting aside award), section

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.