The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the statutory limit to challenge the arbitral award as prescribed in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Court's lack of power to condone the delay beyond 30 days.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Narula, J.

I.A. No 8750 of 2019 (U/Sec. 34(3) of the A&C Act, 1996, r/w Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in filing)

1. The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed against the Arbitral Award dated 20th November 2018, passed by the Sole Arbitrator, (hereinafter ‘the Arbitrator’) whereby an amount of Rs. 22,05,09,651/- along with future interest @ 12% p.a. has been allowed in favour of the Respondent, along with the cost of arbitration assessed at Rs. 25 lakh.

Brief Facts:

2. On 7th May 2010, Petitioner No. 1-Ministry of Health and Family Welfare entered into an agreement with the Respondent-Hosmac Projects Ltd. for construction of Emergency Care Services and for renovation of 16 existing VIP Rooms in Respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’). On completion of the work, Respondent was issued "No Objection Certificate" and Completion Certificate dated 11th February 2015. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties with respect to payment and imposition of liquidated damages etc. and on an application of the Respondent, this Court appointed an Arbitrator who passed the impugned Arbitral Award dated 20th November 2018 (hereinafter ‘the Award’). On 13th December 2018, Respondent filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for correction of computation errors. The application was disposed of and a Corrigendum dated 7th January 2019, was passed, copies whereof were sent to the parties on the same date.

3. The Petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing the present Petition. As per the records of the Registry of this Court, the present case was filed for the first time on 10th May 2019 and re-filed on 13th May 2019, 31st May 2019 and finally after curing all the defects on 1st July 2019. As on 10th May 2019, there is a delay of 33 days in filing the petition, beyond the statutory period of three months. The law relating to exercise of powers in terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) is now well settled. Even if the Court were to exercise its discretion in favour of the Petitioner, any delay beyond 30 days cannot be condoned. In view thereof, on 3rd July 2019, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010) 12 SCC 210, learned counsel for the Petitioner was queried as to the maintainability of the present petition and why it should not be dismissed in limine on account of the statutory bar under Section 34(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner after being granted time to respond to the query of the Court, after seeking instructions, contended that there is in fact no delay in the present petition and delay if any is liable to condoned. Learned Counsel argued that Petitioner No. 1 was never sent a signed copy of the Arbitral Award by the Arbitrator and the signed copy of the Award was sent only to Petitioner No. 2. Even the Corrigendum order dated 7th January 2019, was delivered only to the authorized representative of Petitioner No. 2 and not to Petitioner No. 1. He argued that Petitioner No. 1 received copy of the Award and the Corrigendum order, from Petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 14th March 2019. Since the Arbitrator did not send a signed copy of the Award and a copy thereof was received only on 14th March 2019, the period of 90 days would commence from the said date i.e. 14th March 2019.

4. He also argued that delivery of the Arbitral Award on an agent/Counsel of a party does not amount to proper service on the party. As per Section 31(5) read with Section 2(h) of the Act, a signed copy of the award must be delivered to the party to the dispute. Learned Counsel also contended that the limitation period of 90 days, with respect to Petitioner No