UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.69/2010 Date of Decision: May 04, 2010 DECENT FOOTWEAR PVT LTD ..... Appellant through Mr. S.M.Pandey, Advocate with Mr. K.S.Khatri, Ms. Ritika Gupta and Dr. G.L.Bhatiya, Advocates versus COIM INDIA PVT LTD ..... Respondent through Mr. Jitender Vashisht, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.3599/2010 & FAO No.69/2010 This is an application by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay caused is of 56 days. The only reason given in the application is that the counsel for the appellant was having some skin problem and for that reason, the appeal could not be filed in time. No details have been furnished as to during which period the counsel remained unwell, nor is the application accompanied by the affidavit of the counsel. I find no cogent reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed and so also the appeal. However, learned counsel for the respondent has by way of concession agreed that the interest @ 22% per annum awarded by the arbitrator on the principal amount be reduced. Accordingly, I reduce the interest from 22% to 12% per annum. The counsel for the appellant states that the appellant shall pay the awarded amount along with interest within four months from now. REKHA SHARMA, J. MAY 04, 2010 ka