Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 357
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
Union Of India - Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Biotech International Ltd. - Respondent
O.M.P. (Comm) 399 of 2019 & Ia No.13333 of 2019 (Stay)
Decided On : 18-03-2020
For the Petitioner: Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG with Mr.Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Joel, Mr. Hemant Arya, Ms. Kirti Dua, Mr. Sumit Teterwal, Ms.Rinky, Mr.Sharvan Kumar & Mr.Gokul Sharma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Vipin Nair, Mr.P.B. Suresh, Mr.Karthik Jayashankar, Mr.Sughosh Subramanyam Neergundh, Advs.
The judgment established that a valid petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must comply with all legal requirements, including annexing the impugned award. The court cannot condone delay in re-filing beyond the statutory period, especially when reasons provided are vague and unsubstantiated.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Delay in Re-filing - Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India sought condonation of delay in re-filing petitions challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The original petitions were filed within the statutory period but were returned with objections, leading to multiple re-filings with substantial alterations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original filing was non est and inconsequential due to critical deficiencies, including the absence of the impugned award and other fundamental defects. The delay in re-filing was considered as a delay in filing beyond the statutory period, which the court could not condone.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the original filing was valid or non est, and whether the delay in re-filing should be condoned. The court also considered the sufficiency of the reasons provided for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid petition could only be considered as filed when all necessary documents were annexed and defects were cured. The delay in re-filing beyond the statutory period could not be condoned, especially when the reasons provided were vague and unsubstantiated.
Final Decision: The applications seeking condonation of delay in filing/re-filing the petitions were dismissed, and consequently, the petitions were also dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
REKHA PALLI, J.
I.A. 13334/2019 (delay of 50 days in re-filing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 399/2019
I.A. No.13544/2019 (delay of 55 days in re-filing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 407/2019
I.A. No.13547/2019 (delay of 50 days in re-filing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 408/2019
1. The present decision disposes of similar applications filed by the Union of India seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the three petitions preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (‘the Act’), in each of which a challenge has been laid to three different arbitral awards all dated 14.03.2019.
2. Although all the three applications are based on identical facts, the delay in question is slightly different. The delay of which condonation is sought is 50 days each in O.M.P. (COMM) 399/2019 and O.M.P. (COMM) 408/2019, while it is 55 days in O.M.P. (COMM) 407/2019.
3. In each of these petitions, condonation of delay in re-filing is sought primarily on the ground that a duly signed petition along with the affidavit, the statement of truth and Vakalatnama was filed on 31.05.2019 before the statutory period of limitation of 90 days as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act had expired. On the other hand, the respondents have vehemently opposed these applications primarily on the ground that these petitions, when originally filed within the statutory period of limitation, were merely a ‘bunch of papers’ and could not be treated as being valid in the eyes of law. It is contended that a complete and valid petition was filed only on 18.09.2019 by which date the limitation period of 3 months and 30 days as
4. In view of the preliminary objections raised by the respondents, the learned senior counsel for the parties have been heard at length on the aspect of condonation of delay in re-filing of the petition.
5. Before referring to the grounds on which condonation is sought, the factual matrix surrounding the delay caused in these matters may be noted. For the sake of convenience, only the facts of OMP(COMM.) 399/2019 are being referred to.
6. The impugned award was passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal on 14.03.2019 and the petition under Section 34 of the Act assailing the same came to be filed by the petitioner on 31.05.2019. The petition as filed comprised of 83 pages and admittedly neither included a copy of the impugned Award nor was accompanied by any application seeking exemption from filing the same. The Registry raised 25 objections on this filing, which are reflected in the log information dated 04.06.2019. On 01.07.2019, when the courts re-opened after summer vacations, the petition was returned under objections, which was subsequently re-filed on 11.07.2019 without any corrections. When the petition was again returned under objections, it was re-filed on 31.07.2019 with some drastic alterations and was, at this point, running into 430 pages.
7. Upon further defects being pointed out, the petition was re-filed on 12.09.2019 whereupon the Registry raised further objections and the petition was finally re-filed for the fifth time on 18.09.2019, by which date the petition had increased to 441 pages, along with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition, which as noted hereinabove is the subject matter of the present controversy.
8. This application which barely runs into four paragraphs gives the reasons for delay in paragraph 3, the contents whereof read as under:-
“3. It is respectfully submitted on account of several defects point out by registry in voluminous appeal filed it took long time to came the defect and some extra days wore in getting file approved for Union of India. One of the defects pointed out by registry was to give email address the respondents which against took same extra days to objection removed.”
9. Though the petitioner subsequently filed an additional affidavit on 05.11.2019 in an effort to explain the reasons for delay, but the same merely recounted the particulars of the re-filings.
10. In support of the appli
