The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely filing and refiling of petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, and the requirement for a satisfactory and credible explanation for any delay.

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition is under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 challenging the award dated 11.05.2015. The brief facts as alleged by the petitioner are :

(a) "Balance work of construction of 10 Nos. Major Bridges on Broad Gauge Railway Line across river of spans 9.15 Meter, 12.20 Meter and 30.50 Meter of PSC Girders on well foundations/open foundations with RCC abutments, Piers and other allied works like protection works from KM 72.400 to 113.750 in between Chakki Bank and Mukerian (including yards) in connection with doubling on Jalandhar Cant.-

Pathankot-Jammu Section" was awarded to the respondent for execution of the same subject to applicability of General Condition of Contract, 1999, Standard Specification of Northern Railway, 1987, Northern Railway Standard Schedule of Rates, 1996, The conditions regarding site data and specifications.

(b) The agreement was executed between the parties on 20.11.2002 vide agreement bearing No.74-W/1/1/294/WA/JUC which were signed by both the parties, as such, the terms and conditions mentioned therein are binding upon both the parties. The cost of the work was Rs.10,35,94,810.74 including as per addendum cum corrigendum. The date of starting of the work is 18.12.2002 and the completion date is 19.11.2004. On 04.01.2005 the petitioner issued a letter and the contract was terminated.

(c) On 30.05.2007 the respondent approached this Court by way of filing a petition u/Sec. 11(6) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 vide petition No.112/2006 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. This Court passed an Order and had appointed Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.C. Chopra (Retd.) as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties and on 11.05.2015 the impugned award was passed by the Ld. Arbitrator, allowing claims No.2, 3, 11 & 12 of the respondent which award is under challenge for the grounds stated herein as the impugned award is in conflict with the fundamental policy of Indian law and is also patently illegal.

It is alleged the Ld. Arbitrator had completely ignored the settled principles of law, the statutes and most notably the Indian Evidence Act, Contract Act and the Civil Procedure including the principles therein, principles of common law, natural justice and also common sense and reason and most basic notions of morality and justice and is prima facie patently illegal and had passed the Award with a predetermined and biased mind set completely ignoring the facts, law and precedents of the Apex Court and High Courts in this regard.

(d) On 19.05.2015 the impugned award dated 11.05.2015 was received by the petitioner so the Petitioner was supposed to file the objection petition within three months from the date of receiving of impugned award that is up to 17.08.2015. On 09.09.2015 the objection petition was filed through e-filing before this Court vide diary No.455341/15, along with an application under Section 34(3) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 22 days by the petitioner.

(e) On 13.10.2015 the objection was raised on the petition by the registry of this Court and the petition was received back by the previous railway advocate Sh. V.S.R. Krishna. In between due to change of pecuniary jurisdiction w.e.f. 23.10.2015, the present petition was supposed to be filed before the District & Sessions Judge, but the previous railway advocate Sh. V.S.R. Krishna kept the file with him and did not file it before the competent Court of Law nor returned the case file to the concerned officer of the petitioner/Railway. It was only upon receipt of the complete case file from Sh. V.S.R. Krishna, Advocate, the case was assigned to the present counsel for filing objections which was allegedly filed without further loss of time. The present case comes under the category of re-filing before the competent Court of Law, i.e. before the District Courts.

2. Admittedly the award was passed on 11.05.2015 and was received by the petitio