JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the 'A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter the 'impugned award'). The above-captioned petition is also accompanied by applications for condonation of delay in filing the petition (IA No. 9836/2020) and an application for condonation of delay in re-filing the petition (IA No. 9839/2020). By an order dated 23.10.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, had expressly held that before hearing the abovecaptioned petition, these applications (IA No. 9836/2020 and 9839/2020) would be heard and decided.

2. By the application, (IA No. 9836/2020), the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of one hundred and ten days in filing the above-captioned petition. However, it is averred in the said application that there is no delay in filing the above-captioned petition since the period of limitation has been extended by the Supreme Court by an order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 captioned RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. The said contention is stoutly contested by Mr Kakra, learned counsel who appears for the respondent.

3. In order to address the aforesaid controversy, it would be necessary to note a few relevant dates. The impugned award was delivered on 25.02.2020. The learned Arbitrator sent a scanned signed copy of the impugned award to the counsel for the parties by an e-mail sent on that date. The respondent also sent a copy of the impugned award to the petitioner by an e-mail on 28.02.2020. Thereafter, the respondent also sent a copy of the same by post under cover of its letter dated 29.02.2020. According to the respondent, the same was served to the petitioner on 03.03.2020. The tracking report of the courier agency indicating the same is annexed with the reply filed by the respondent. However, the petitioner claims that although its counsel had received the impugned award on 25.02.2020, he had forwarded the same to the petitioner on 12.03.2020. Thus, according to the petitioner, the period of limitation for filing the above-captioned petition would commence on 12.03.2020.

4. The above-captioned petition was filed on 12.09.2020 at 04:20 pm. The same was examined and was found to be defective. This was communicated to the petitioner on 24.09.2020. The petition was once again re-filed on 07.10.2020, that is, after a period of thirteen days (the first re-filing). The petition, as re-filed, was found to be defective and this was communicated to the petitioner on 09.10.2020. It was once again re-filed on the next date, that is, on 10.10.2020 (the second refiling).

5. The petition as originally filed was of 686 pages. The petition as re-filed on 10.10.2020 was of 714 pages but certain objections still remained unaddressed.

6. The petition was, accordingly, marked as defective and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 15.10.2020. The petition was re-filed on 17.10.2020 (the third re-filing). The petition was now 719 pages. However, certain objections still remained and this was communicated to the petitioner on 19.10.2020. The petition was re-filed on 21.10.2020 (the fourth re-filing). It was examined and listed before this Court on 22.10.2020.

7. It is seen from the above, that there has been a considerable delay in re-filing of the above-captioned petition. However, this Court is of the view that the same would not be fatal to the petition. The matter relating to condonation of delay in re-filing the petition stands on a separate footing vis a vis, the question of delay in filing the petition. As noticed above, the number of pages had increased with each subsequent re-filing. However, the petition filed initially was not modified substantially. It is also seen that the defects were not such that would render the initial filing non est.

8. In view of the above, the