JUDGMENT : RITU BAHRI, C.J. 1. The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgment dated 26.10.2021, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Commercial, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No. 113 of 2018, as well as the award dated 25.09.2018, passed by the learned sole Arbitrator. 2. At this stage, a reference can be made to an order dated 21.03.2024, passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No. 406 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand & others vs. Sandesh Kumar and connected matters, where on account of the delay, the appeal filed by the State has been dismissed simply on the ground that the provisions of Limitation Act are to be followed very strictly in the arbitration proceedings. 3. One such judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was rendered in Appeal from Order No. 127 of 2021, State of Uttarakhand & others vs. M/s Hillways Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd. decided on 07.03.2022, wherein after examining the provisions of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, which only provides condonation of delay of 30 days and 60 days, the application for condonation of delay of 85 days was dismissed, taking note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) represented by Executive Engineer Vs. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 460 , wherein in Paragraph No. 63, it has been held as under: “Given the aforesaid and the object of speedy disposal sought to be achieved both under the Arbitration Act and the Commercial Courts Act, for appeals filed under section 37 of the Arbitration Act that are governed by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act or section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, a delay beyond 90 days, 30 days or 60 days, respectively, is to be condoned by way of exception and not by way of rule. In a fit case in which a party has otherwise acted bona fide and not in a negligent manner, a short delay beyond such period can, in the discretion of the court, be condoned, always bearing in mind that the other side of the picture is that the opposite party may have acquired both in equity and justice, what may now be lost by the first party’s inaction, negligence or laches.” 4. In the present case, the delay is 445 days, and keeping in view the detailed judgment passed by this Court and no case for condoning the delay is made out, the present appeal is dismissed accordingly. 5. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.