The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. No. 19342/2022

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant/respondent does not press the instant application and prayed leave of this Court to withdraw the present application with liberty to file an appropriate application under the appropriate proceedings.

In view of the above, the application is dismissed as not pressed with liberty granted, as prayed for.

I.A. No. 17442/2019

1. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Volume V Chapter 1 Part A(a) Rule 4 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"A. Allow the present Application and condone the delay of 59 days in filing the Present Petition; and B. Pass any further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice."

2. The petitioner has sought to file the captioned petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Arbitration Act") against impugned Award dated 22nd June 2019 whereby an amount of Rs. 1,83,08,290.05/- plus interest thereon has been granted in favour of the respondent and the petitioner has been awarded an amount of Rs.69,500/- against its claim. The petitioner by way of the instant application has sought directions from this Court for condonation of delay of 59 days in filing the petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner received the impugned Award dated 22nd June 2019 on 1st July 2019. Thereafter, on 15th July 2019, the learned Arbitrator sent a letter bearing no. 405367/PM/Post Arbtn Award Corres/21/E8 for correction in the impugned Award, which was received by the petitioner on 22nd July 2019.

4. It is submitted that vide letter No. 8655/CEDZ-36/13-14/91/E8 dated 25th July 2019 of the HQ CWE New Delhi Cantt to HQ CE Delhi Zone, Delhi Cantt seeking an onward submission to the E-in-C's Branch for obtaining LA (Def) Advice. The same was then forwarded to E-in-C's Branch, New Delhi on 7th August 2019 and was received in the E-in-C Branch, New Delhi on the same day. Subsequently, on 27th September 2019, the case file for appointment of the CGSC was forwarded to the Ministry of Law and Justice, and on 30th October 2019, the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were filed.

5. The learned counsel submitted that thereafter on three occasions, i.e, 31st October 2019, 15th November 2019 and 28th November 2019, the petition came to be marked as defective by the Registry of this Court, and all three time the same was re-filed. It is submitted that due to a bereavement in the family of the counsel for petitioner the petition could not be re-filed in time. However, the delay in filing and re-filing was neither intentional nor deliberate but has occasioned due to reasons which were unavoidable.

6. Therefore, it is prayed that the instant application may be allowed and the delay of 59 days in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act against the impugned Award may be condoned.

7. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the instant application and submitted that under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, the delay beyond what is stipulated under Section 34(3) of the Act cannot be condoned unless the petitioner satisfies the Court of the reasons for the extraordinary delay.

8. It is submitted that under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the objections to an Arbitral Award may be filed within three months. However, the petitioner failed to do so. Further, the provision lays down that beyond the period of three months, a further period of thirty days may be condoned by the Court, if the Court is satisfied of the reasons for the delay but no leverage shall be given to the petitioner thereafter. It is submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has