The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the petitioner to demonstrate that the delay in re-filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was not intentional and for sufficient reasonable reasons, as per the provisions of Section 34(3) and relevant case laws.

IA No. 2934/2013 (for condonation of delay)

1. The objections under Section 34 have been filed by the petitioner against an award dated 25.07.2012. The award was apparently received by the parties on 31.07.2012. Section 34(3) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) prescribes the period of limitation for filing the objections under an award and that limitation is 90 days. Proviso to Section 34(3) gives the power to the Court to extend the said period of limitation for another period of 30 days provided sufficient reasons for the delay has been explained. In the present case, the limitation for filing the objections started with effect from 01.08.2012 and expired on 31.10.2012, i.e., 90 days. The present petition was filed on 28.09.2012 and, therefore, it is apparent that the petition was filed within the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days.

2. After the petition was filed, several objections were raised by the Registry and the petitioner could remove those objections only by 14.02.2013 and, thereafter, the petition was presented before this Court.

3. Along with the petition under Section 34 of the Act, the petitioner has also moved an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in re-filing the case. Two reasons have been shown for such delay in the application; one is that the office of the petitioner being at Bhopal, there was telephonic gap of communication between the counsel of the petitioner at Delhi and the AR of the petitioner at Bhopal. The counsel for the petitioner at Delhi is stated to be Shri Gaurav Garg although in the application the petitioner has not disclosed the name of counsel at Delhi and the name of the AR of the petitioner. But, during the course of arguments, the name of Shri Gaurav Garg, Advocate who is based in Delhi is disclosed and the identity of AR of the petitioner, is disclosed as the Managing Director of the Federation. The second reason for delay is stated to have occurred on account of the amendment in the Court Fees Act, under which the petitioner was required to arrange the Court Fee. On these facts, it has been prayed that delay of 108 days in re-filing be condoned.

4. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the case law in DDA vs. Amit Nand Aggarwal AIR 2008 Delhi 114 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107.

5. Reply to the application has been filed. In the reply, it is submitted that total delay is 128 days and not 108 days, as stated in the petition. It is submitted that the petition was filed on 27.09.2012 and after the objections were raised, the petitioner was to remove the objections within a week and had to re-file the same by 04.10.2012. The objections could be removed finally only on 14.02.2013 and the re-filing was done thereafter. Therefore, the total delay comes to 128 days. It is further submitted that the delay has not been properly explained. The delay in refilling was without any cogent reason and shows gross negligence on the part of the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that as regards the amendment in the Court Fee is concerned, it has become effective from 01.08.2012, i.e., before the initial filing of the petition on 27.09.2012. Therefore, this plea of the petitioner is not bona fide.

7. The respondent has relied on the case law in DDA vs. Durga Construction Co. 2013 (139) DRF 133 (DB) and Executive Engineer vs. Shree Ram Construction Co. 2010 (120) DRF 615 (DB).

8. In the rejoinder, the petitioner had denied that the delay was 128 days and had again reiterated the delay of 108 days. However, during the course of arguments, it is not disputed that actual delay in re-filing was 128 days. It is submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to condone the delay in re-filing. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was conducted under the control of Shri Saroj Kumar Verma, who is a Bhopal based lawyer and had engaged