The Court emphasized the importance of diligence in addressing procedural defects and allowed the condonation of delay based on the petitioner's consistent efforts to rectify the objections.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A.13517/2019 (under Section 151 CPC for Condonation of Delay of 1 day in filing of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996) and I.A.13519/2019 (under Section 151 CPC for Condonation of Delay of 42 days day in re-filing of the said petition)

1. The petitioner being aggrieved by some of the claims decided against it, has filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act") against the impugned Award. However, despite due diligence and on account of bona fide reasons, the petitioner was unable to file the petition within the stipulated period of limitation. The Award was signed by the learned Arbitrator on 30th October, 2018, but since the balance fee had not been paid to the learned Arbitrator, the copy of the Award was handed over to the petitioner on 19th December, 2018 and to the respondent on 24th December, 2018. Thereafter, an application dated 02nd February, 2019 was filed for review/correction and the mandate of the Tribunal finally came to an end on 01st May, 2019 in regard to which an email was sent to the counsel by the learned Arbitrator on the same day, but the same was not received by the petitioner. The limitation to file the present petition was available till 31st July, 2019.

2. The petitioner has submitted that after the copy of the Award was made available, it was sent to the concerned Department where it was reviewed by the concerned Officers which took some time as the records were voluminous. A decision was taken to admit the Award on certain points but to challenge it partially to the extent it has been challenged in the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The Objection petition thereafter was prepared by the learned Counsel and was sent for final approval to the concerned Legal Cell so that the same could be filed in the Court. The aforesaid procedure took some time and was filed on 02nd August, 2019 with a resultant delay of one day, but this is within the extended period of 30 days as permitted under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. The I.A. No. 13517/2019 has accordingly been filed to condone the delay of one day in filing the objections.

3. In I.A. No. 13519/2019, it has been further submitted that the matter was filed on 02nd August, 2019 after which the Registry of the High Court vide its email dated 06th August, 2019 pointed out certain defects in the petition which after removal was re-filed on 29th August, 2019. Again, some objections were pointed out by the Registry about filing of Statement of Truth, inclusion of email ID in the Memo of Parties, arrangement of the documents in ascending chronological order and filing of affidavit mentioning the place where the petitioner was presently residing. The matter was re-filed on 03rd September, 2019 after removing the defects. However, again some defects were pointed out on 04th September, 2019 and the matter was again re-filed. In the process, there has been a delay of 42 days in re-filing of the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, which may be condoned.

4. The Respondent in its reply has asserted that the petitioner in its application to the Condonation of Delay of one day in filing of the petition has admitted that the copy of the Award was received by him on 19th December, 2018, but it is asserted that the delay in receiving the copy was purely on account of the petitioner's failure to pay the balance fee of the learned Arbitrator.

5. It is further stated that there were three Awards in respect of illumination of Safdarjung Monument, Purana Quila and Sabz Burj and all three were announced and signed on 30th October, 2018 and the copies received on 19th December, 2018. In the two Awards pertaining to Subz Burj Monument and Purana Quila Monument, one year interest was left out in the calculation and clarification was sought in respect of future interest and costs. The clarifications were given and the cl