JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 245/2019 (under Section 151 CPC for Condonation of Delay in filing of the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996) and I.A. 246/2019 (under Section 151 CPC for Condonation of Delay in re-filing of the petition)

1. The petitioner has filed the Petition under Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act, 1996”) on 16.11.2018 against the impugned Arbitration Award dated 30.06.2018. It is stated that the copy of the Award was received by the petitioner on 19.08.2018. The delay of 16 days is sought to be condoned vide I.A. NO. 245/2019, and vide I.A. NO. 246/2019, a delay of 61 days in re-filing of the petitioner is sought to be condoned.

2. The respondent in its reply has asserted that the petitioner has wrongly claimed that the petition has been filed within the prescribed period of 120 days. In fact, the delay is beyond 120 days from the date of receiving the Award by the petitioner. Three set of copies of the original Award were prepared. One copy was given to NHAI, HQ Dwarka, another copy was sent to the Project Director, PIU, NHAI, Odisha and the third copy was sent to the respondent by speed-post.

3. The tracking report reveals that the Award was received in the HQ of the petitioner on 02.07.2018 at New Delhi while the Project Director, Odisha received the Award on 03.07.2018. The present petition has been filed on 16.11.2018 which is beyond 120 days from the date of receiving of the Award by the petitioner. The information about the delivery of the Awards and the tracking report has been obtained through an RTI which is annexed along with the reply.

4. It is asserted that in terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, 1996, the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 can be filed within three months. It further provides that if sufficient grounds and reasons are shown for condoning the delay, the period may be extended by 30 days but not beyond that. Thus, the objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed.

5. By way of rejoinder, the petitioner has admitted that the Award was received in their HQ on 02.07.2018 and by the Project Director, Odisha on 03.07.2018. It is explained that due to oversight in one of the internal communication letters dated 19.07.2018, it was wrongly noted that the Award has been received on 19.07.2018 due to which the delay has occurred unintentionally.

6. The limitation for filing the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996 started on 03.07.2018 and the three months expired on 02.10.2018. The Court had power to condone the delay of further period of 30 days under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, 1996 and therefore, the extended period of limitation expired on 02.11.2018. The objections were filed on 16.10.2018 which was within the period prescribed under Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996. Therefore, it is stated that the objections have been filed within the period of limitation and the delay, if any, may be condoned for the reasons stated herein.

7. Submissions heard.

8. For considering the application for condonation of delay, the first aspect to be noted is the date of filing. The date on which the Petition is properly filed is to be treated as the date of filing. Filings with fundamental defects making them hopelessly inadequate were not considered as a proper filing in DDA v. Durga Construction, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4451. It was observed in Steel Stripes Wheels Ltd. v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd, OMP (COMM) 507/2019:

“21. The log information and the defect sheet indicate that most of the vital defects were cleared by the petitioner only on 20.11.2019 when the petition was re-filed. Thus, it is on this date, the petition can be treated to have been properly filed and since this is the date which has to be reckoned as the date of fresh filing, the petition being filed beyond 120 days is barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the Ac