JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) challenging the Arbitral Award dated 14.03.2022 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The learned senior counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the present petition contending that the same has been filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 34(3) of the Act, including the maximum period of delay that can be condoned by this Court in filing of the present petition.

3. At the outset, a few admitted facts deserve to be noticed:-

(a) The date of the Impugned Award is 14.03.2022;

(b) The petitioner does not dispute that a copy of the Award was supplied by the learned Arbitral Tribunal to the petitioner on the same day and, therefore, for the filing of the present petition, the period shall commence from 14.03.2022;

(c) The period of three months prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act for filing of the petition expired on 13.06.2022;

(d) The Court was closed for summer vacation between 04.06.2022 till 01.07.2022. For the purpose of limitation, by the Notification dated 20.05.2022 issued by the High Court, the Court was deemed to have re-opened only on 04.07.2022;

(e) The petition was filed by the petitioner on 04.07.2022. The same was, however, marked defective by the Registry of this Court with the following observation:-

“TOTAL 82 PAGES FILED, NO AWARD FILED, NO DOCUMENTS FILED, NO BOOKMARKING DONE, NON OF THE AFFIDAVIT ATTESTED. CANNOT RAISE PROPER OBJECTIONS, BE FILED AS PER THE NORMS GIVEN FOR E FILING ON THE WEB PORTAL OF DELHI HIGH COURT.”

(f) The petition was thereafter re-filed by the petitioner on 26th, 27th and 29th July, 2022, when again certain defects were found in the filing of the petition, and the petition was returned to the petitioner for re-filing.

(g) The petitioner then re-filed the petition on 01.08.2022, when it was accepted for listing by the Registry of this Court.

4. Based on the objections that were found by the Registry in the filing by the petitioner on 04.07.2022, the learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the said filing was ‘non-est’. He submits that the Office Report indicates that only 82 pages were filed on 04.07.2022. The filing was without a copy of the Impugned Award or the documents in support of the grounds for challenge. Even the affidavit in support of the petition was not attested through the Oath Commissioner. He submits that the petitioner eventually filed the petition only on 26.07.2022, running into 715 pages. He submits that though the said petition was also returned by the Registry raising some defects, at best, 26.07.2022 can be considered as the date of first filing of the petition. In support he places reliance on the judgments of this Court in DDA v. Durga Construction Co., (2013) 139 DRJ 133; Union of India v. Bharat Biotech International Ltd., (2020) 268 DLT 140; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Venture of M/s Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (SREE) & M/s Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (MEIL), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10456; Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Planetcast Technologies Ltd., (2020) 271 DLT 474; Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2020) 270 DLT 381; and Executive Engineer National Highway Division v. S&P Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1859.

5. The learned senior counsel for the respondent further submits that in terms of the proviso of Section 34(3) of the Act, a delay of not more than 30 days in filing of the petition can alone be condoned by this Court. In support he places reliance on Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470; State of H.P. v. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010) 12 SCC 210; and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Construction Co., (2021) 4 SCC 629. He submits that as the petition was filed only on 26.07.2022, that is after the expiry of 30 days period from 13.0