A petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must fulfill certain basic parameters such as: (a) Each page of the Petition as well as the last page should be signed by the party and the Advocate; (b) Vakalatnama should be signed by the party and the Advocate and the signatures of the party must be identified by the Advocate; (c) Statement of Truth/Affidavit should be signed by the party and attested by the Oath Commissioner.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Ia 12712/2019 (condonation of delay of 17 days in re-filing)

1. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing an Award dated 30.01.2019 as modified by an order dated 30.03.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. By way of the present application, Petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 17 days in re-filing the petition. The grounds stated in the application are that the Award was served on the Petitioner on 24.04.2019 and the petition was filed on 19.07.2019. Owing to certain defects notified by the Registry on 22.07.2019, Petitioner sought to retrieve typed copies of certain documents to cure the defects, and this resulted in delay in re-filing and the petition was re-filed on 04.09.2019.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contends that a complete and signed petition was filed on 19.07.2019 along with an affidavit, duly signed and verified and notarized on 19.07.2019 and a Vakalatnama. On 22.07.2019, the petition was returned with certain objections and re-filed on 08.08.2019. Again, certain objections were raised on 09.08.2019 and the petition was re-filed on 04.09.2019, along with Statement of Truth and other documents, the Statement of Truth being notarized on 03.09.2019, prior to the re-filing. The defects raised on 05.09.2019 were duly cured on 06.09.2019 and on 07.09.2019, the petition was cleared for listing on 13.09.2019. It is submitted that the petition was initially filed within the limitation period of three months from the date of receipt of the Award on 24.04.2019.

4. With regard to the objections raised successively by the Registry, Learned Senior Counsel submits that the non-filing of the Statement of Truth at the stage of initial filing was only a bona fide mistake on the part of the Petitioner and was cured as soon as the defect was notified. In any case, an affidavit in support of the petition was filed along with the petition.

5. As far as the objection of non-filing of the Award along with the petition is concerned, learned Senior Counsel argues that the impugned Award was subsequently filed on 04.09.2019 and in any case, this cannot lead to the dismissal of the petition as in fact the Award was only served on the counsel for the Petitioner and not on the party and therefore, the limitation did not begin to run. It is contended that it is a settled law that under Section 31(5) of the Act, limitation under Section 34(3) begins to run only on receipt of signed copy of the Award by the party and service on the counsel is not enough. Reliance is placed on the judgements in Benarsi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters (P) Ltd., (2012) 9 SCC 490 , State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders (P) Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616 and Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239 . Reliance is also placed on the Scheme of the ICC Rules of Arbitration where it is provided in Chapter XVII that the Secretariat would notify to the parties the original of the Award, Addenda and Decisions. The Secretariat will also send a Courtesy Copy of the PDF signed, original of the Award and Decisions to the parties by e-mail. Sending of a Courtesy Copy by e-mail would not trigger any of the time limits under the ICC Rules of Arbitration. It is thus argued that a conjoint reading of Rules 174 and 175 of the ICC Rules, makes it clear that limitation period does not commence till the original Award is served on the party.

6. It is further argued that the Petition, alongwith Statement of Truth and Affidavits, duly signed and verified on 19.07.2019 and Vakalatnama bearing the signatures of the said date was filed on 19.07.2019 and was a proper filing. The date of 03.09.2019 appearing on the Statement of Truth is only a bonafide mistake on the part of the Petitioner and cannot be taken to be the date of actual execution of the document. Once a petition, with all supporting vital documents was filed within the limitation period, the perfunctory defects, if any, cannot make th