The main legal point established in the judgment is that a filing can be considered as 'Non-est' only if it is filed without any signatures of either the party or its authorised counsel, and that the delay in filing and refiling may be fatal if disproportionately large to the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. - The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27.09.2019 passed I.A. No. 13340/2019 in O.M.P. (COMM.) 400/2019 by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said application preferred by the appellant/ petitioner to seek condonation of delay in filing the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on the ground that though the objection petition was initially preferred within the 120-day period of the receipt of the copy of the majority award by the petitioner on 11.04.2019, the same could not be considered as a valid filing due to several serious defects in the original filing itself which took place on 03.08.2019. Consequently, the objection petition also stands dismissed.

2. The impugned order takes note of the defects which were found in the initial filing, namely the absence of Vakalatnama, Court fees, impugned Award, requisite documents, signed & attested Statement of Truth and affidavits in support of the application.

3. The factual position taken note of in the impugned order is that the after the initial filing of the objection petition on 03.08.2019, the defects were, firstly, notified on 06.08.2019 and there were 18 defects notified by the Registry. The petition was re-filed on 31.08.2019 when 17 defects were notified. Apparently, it was re-filed on 02.09.2019 when one defect was notified. It was re-filed on 03.09.2019, and five old defects remained and one new defect dated 02.09.2019 also remained. On 04.09.2019, all old defects were cured by the petitioner. On the same day, three new defects were notified. Two new defects were notified on 11.09.2019; and one new defect was notified on 13.09.2019. Yet again, on 20.09.2019, one new defect was notified; and on 21.09.2019 another new defect was notified. Eventually, the petition was registered on 23.09.2019.

4. From the above, it would be seen that the Registry kept raising new defects upon, practically, each re-filing. In our view, the Registry should raise all objections which exist in a petition as filed, in the first instance only, unless new defects crop-up and are noticed on account of the re-filing of the petition, with fresh documents or any other changes that may have been made in the petition as originally filed. Otherwise, it would be unfair to the party filing the petition, and it would also result in delaying the registration and listing of the petition before the Court.

5. The Ld. Single Judge has proceeded to dismiss the aforesaid application seeking condonation of delay in initial filing of the objection petition by concluding that the said filing was "Non-est", i.e. no filing in the eyes of law. The issue we need to consider is, whether, this is the correct view in the facts of the present case.

6. From the objections taken note of hereinabove, it is evident that the petition as originally filed, was signed by the petitioner, since no such objection was raised that the petition was not signed when originally filed.

7. Reliance placed by the respondent on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Director-cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare Vs. Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd, FAO(OS) (COMM) 240/2019 decided on 25.09.2019 to claim that the originally filed petition was, as good as, no filing, in our view is inapposite inasmuch, as, in the facts of the case dealt with by the Division Bench, the petition when originally filed, was neither signed by the party, nor by the counsel. Thus, the ownership of the document/ petition as filed in the Registry, was not fixed and the party in whose name the petition was filed, as well as the counsel in whose name it was filed, could disown having filed the said petition/document, at any stage. It was in this background that the Division Bench took the view that the original filing could be considered as no filing at all.

8. A perusal of the aforesaid decision would show that the Division Bench sought to disting