The judgment establishes the strict interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient cause and the mandatory nature of the prescribed timeline.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. 3337/2023

1. The main Petition has been filed against the arbitral award dated 04.12.2019 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator which was corrected vide Order dated 04.01.2020. Vide the said arbitral award, the Sole Arbitrator awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,40,32,569/- towards the claims to the Respondent.

2. The instant Application has been filed by the Petitioner praying for condonation of the delay of 589 days and to hear the matter on its own merits and treat the present Petition within the limitation period.

3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that an objection petition was filed by the Petitioner before the District Court (Commercial), Patiala House, New Delhi on 11.11.2020. The delay in filing the same was condoned due to the COVID-19 Lockdown and the closure of Court during the said period.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that after withdrawing the Petition from the Patiala House Courts, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) approached the Ministry of Law and Justice vide letter dated 25.03.2021 for appointment of a counsel for filing the appeal before the appropriate forum i.e., the Delhi High Court. Further, a Counsel was appointed, and the said Counsel never filed the appeal and kept the file and documents with him.

5. It is stated that the CPWD again requested the Ministry of Law and Justice vide letter to appoint some other senior counsel for urgent filling of the objection petition and thereafter the case was marked/transferred to the present Standing Counsel. The counsel in this matter was appointed by the Ministry of Law and Justice vide letter dated 15.06.2022 to file the same. After various deliberation and conferences in this matter with the officers of the concerned department, the present petition has been filed without any delay.

6. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "In re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" in Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 3 of 2020 has extended the limitation period which came to an end on 30.05.2022. Therefore, the limitation period of the present Petition begins from the said date.

7. It is submitted that the delay in filing the present petition is not deliberate or intentional. The delay occurred due to administrative exigencies, as the files must go through various departments and officers for necessary approvals and vetting. It is stated that most of the delay caused is only due to administrative exigencies and due to the laxity of the previous counsel who did not file the present petition on time. It is further submitted that if the delay is not condoned the Petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss, however, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent if the delay in filing the present Petition is condoned by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the averments made and submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is 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.

9. 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 not showed sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the petition. It is also submitted that a defective petition had been deliberately filed on behalf of the petitioner to take undue advantage of the limitation period.

10. Therefore, it is submitted that the instant application may