The court adopted a liberal approach in condoning the delay in re-filing, considering the diligent pursuit of the matter and the satisfactory explanation provided for the delay.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - I.A. No. 13437/2019 (condonation of delay in filing) & I.A. No. 12472/2019 (condonation of delay in re-filing)

1. I.A. No. 13437/2019 is an application filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 1 day in filing the present petition and I.A. No. 12472/2019 is an application seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in re-filing.

2. Present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') assailing the Award dated 23.04.2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Petition was filed on 23.07.2019, and along with the petition, Petitioner had only filed an application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing. It was averred that the objection petition was filed within the statutory period of 90 days. Objections were raised by the Registry for the first time on 26.08.2019, which were removed by the Petitioner and the petition was re-filed on 28.08.2019. On 29.08.2019, Registry raised a further objection of delay in re-filing. It is averred that the delay is unintentional.

3. Thereafter, the matter was listed in Court on 11.09.2019 and during the hearing Mr. Dewan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent had objected to condonation of delay and learned counsel for the Petitioner had sought time to address further arguments on the delay in filing. Subsequent thereto, Petitioner filed an application for condonation of delay of 1 day in initial filing. An Additional Affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay in re-filing was also filed by the Petitioner.

4. It is stated in the Affidavit that the petition was filed on 23.07.2019 and was returned by the Registry on 25.07.2019 pointing out defects. Petitioner had annexed a number of documents with the petition which included Balance Sheets etc. which were illegible. It took some time for the Petitioner to search for the legible copies and, therefore, clearing the defects took time and the petition was re-filed on 23.08.2019, which was, however, within the period of 30 days, allowed under Proviso to Section 34 (3) of the Act. It is stated that on 26.08.2019, fresh defects were pointed out, which were removed and objections were re-filed. On 29.08.2019, petition was returned with an observation that application for condonation of delay in re-filing should be filed. Fresh objections were raised in terms of the new Practice Directions that all documents be arranged in ascending chronological order etc. It is stated that on 30.08.2019, the associate counsel visited the Registry to explain that since the Directions were issued after the petition was filed, it would be difficult to change the entire petition. The associate counsel was asked to visit the Registry on 02.09.2019, as the senior person incharge of filing was on leave. On 03.09.2019, associate counsel again visited the Registry and was informed that request for exemption be endorsed on the petition. It is further stated that on 05.09.2019 again certain objections were raised which were cleared and petition was re-filed on 06.09.2019. In these circumstances, the delay is unintentional and the Petitioner prays for condonation of delay.

5. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the objections were filed within the statutory period of 3 months on 23.07.2019. All mandatory compliances had been done at the time of filing i.e. Affidavit in support of the petition, duly attested on 23.07.2019 filed; Statement of Truth, duly verified and attested on 23.07.2019 filed; Court Fees as per Rules filed and Vakalatnama duly signed by the Authorised Representative of the Petitioner and two counsels was filed.

6. Learned counsel argues that once the initial filing was with all the vital documents and was compliant with all procedural requirements, it was a ''proper'' filing and in so far as re-filing is concerned, it is settled law that the Court should adopt a liberal approach, while condo