RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Application of the petitioner for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is for consideration.

2. The petition is filed with respect to arbitral award dated 31st July, 2002. The arbitral tribunal comprised of three retired judges of High Court. The majority award has awarded to the respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) a sum of Rs.2,72,70,671/- together with interest on Rs.2,23,43,405 at 15% per annum from the date of reference till the date of payment besides costs. The minority award also awards a sum of Rs.1,45,67,405/- to the respondent FCI together with interest at 15% per annum from the date of reference. The minority award further observes that Shri Manjeet Singh, sole proprietor of the petitioner herein had died during the course of arbitration proceedings and his legal representatives have been brought on record and further directs that the legal representatives are not personally liable to pay the awarded amount to the respondent and their liability is only to the extent of the estate of the deceased inherited by them.

3. The arbitration was under the aegis of the Indian Council of Arbitration which vide its letter dated 21st August, 2002 to the parties informed the parties of the publication of the awards aforesaid and it is also stated in the said letter that true copies of each of the awards were being sent therewith to the parties. The petitioner does not dispute receipt of the said letter. The letter is stated to have been received on 26th August, 2002. It is however the case of the petitioner that no copies of the awards were received under cover of the said letter and the petitioner wrote to the Indian Council of Arbitration and the photocopies of the awards were received by it on 3rd September, 2002. Though the petitioner has not filed copy of the letter, if any, written to the Indian Council of Arbitration or proof of having received award on 3rd September, 2002 but in view of what is stated herein below the same is not relevant.

4. The petitioner instituted the OMP first in this court on 21st November, 2002. The said institution was within three months of the date of delivery of the signed copy of the award to the petitioner as aforesaid or even from the letter dated 21st August, 2002 (Supra). However, the record shows that the Registry of this court, finding the OMP filed to be not in order, raised as many as six objections on the same date i.e. 21st November, 2002 and the OMP was ordered to be returned to the petitioner, to be re-filed within a week.

5. Though there is no record of the date when the petitioner collected the OMP with objections from the Registry but the same is again irrelevant in as much as the OMP was scrutinized and the objections put on 21st November, 2002 itself. It was for the petitioner to be vigilant and to collect the returned OMP.

6. The record next shows an endorsement dated 20th December, 2002 of the counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the objections had been removed and the case be listed before the court. Again, though there is no record of the date on which the petitioner re-filed the petition, the same must have been re-filed on 20th December, 2002 or thereafter; the fact remains that the said re-filing was not within seven days but after one month of the date on which the objections were first put.

7. The record shows that the OMP was scrutinized on 2nd January, 2003. This time, there is a notation that the objections earlier put had not been removed and further that the OMP was not accompanied with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing.

8. Again, there is nothing to show on which date the petitioner after 2nd January, 2003 collected the OMP from the filing counter of this court. On record there is only an endorsement dated 2nd May, 2003 of the Registry showing that the petition had again been re-filed but this time around was without the format requ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document