Navin Chawla, J.

Ia 2639/2019 (delay) in OMP(Comm.) 39/2019

IA 2641/2019 (delay) in OMP(Comm.) 40/2019

1. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of 46 days delay in re-filing of the petitions.

2. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the Impugned Award, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') before the Arbitrator. The same was dismissed by the Arbitrator on 31.08.2018. The order dismissing the application was received by the petitioner on 05.09.2018. The petitioner filed the present petitions on 30.10.2018. The same were, however, returned under objections on 01.11.2018. It is further asserted that the petitions were refiled on 09.11.2018, however, by a clerical mistake the old CD(s) were filed. At the same time, the petitioner sent the documents for typing to the typing pool at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex on 03.11.2018. These were finally received by the petitioner on 01.01.2019. Certain objections were in the meantime raised by the Registry. The petitions were finally filed after numerous occasions on 16.01.2019, in this manner, resulting in delay in filing of the petitions.

3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the present applications do not disclose any sufficient reason for condoning the delay in re-filing of the petition. He submits that infact, the present would be a case of filing a fresh petition and therefore, rigour of Section 34(3) of the Act would be applicable and the delay being beyond the period of 30 days after 3 months of receipt of the Award, such delay cannot be condoned.

4. He further points out the contradictions between the earlier applications being IA 1170/2019 in OMP(Comm.) no.39/2019 and IA 1173/2019 in OMP(Comm.) No.40/2019 filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in refilling. He submits that in IAs 1170/2019 and 1173/2019, it had been pleaded that the delay had occurred only due to the typing not being completed on time in the present applications, the petitioner had asserted that the petitions were re-filed on 09.11.2018 and 27.11.2018 as well. He submits that clearly the petitions were re-filed with defects only in order to avoid the petitions from being barred by limitation.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitions were filed on 30.10.2018 that is within the period of limitation. On being returned under objections on 01.11.2018, the same were re-filed on 09.11.2018. The same was again returned back for the defects on 16.11.2018. This process continued over a number of times before finally the petitions were cleared for listing on 24.01.2019.

6. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitions originally filed on 30.10.2018 have been substantially changed by the petitioner. It is clear that the petitioner was struggling in making compliance with the procedural requirements of filing such petitions.

7. The question of delay in re-filing of the petitions cannot be tested on the same anvil as that of filing of the petitions itself. Some more leniency has to be shown while considering the delay in re-filing, provided that the Court finds that it is not a case which would be treated like a fresh filing of the petition itself.

8. Tested on the above parameters, I find that the petitioner has been able to make out sufficient cause for condoning the delay for re-filing of the petitions.

9. However, at the same time, the cavalier attitude of the petitioner is evident from the discrepancies in the two applications filed by it for seeking such condonation. If the petitioner is to be believed that it had sent documents for typing on 03.11.2018 which were finally received by it only on 01.01.2019, it would become evident that the filing done between this peri