The court adopted a liberal and justice-oriented approach in condoning the delay, considering the petitioner's explanation for the delay and citing relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)

I.A. 4887/2019 (u/Sec. 151 CPC by petitioner)

1. By way of present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 9 days in re-filing the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (hereinafter, the A&C Act) impugning Award dated 20.11.2018 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Sole Arbitrator in relation to Contract Agreement dated 15.12.2012 entered into between the parties.

2. The respondent has taken an objection that the initial filing of the petition on 15.02.2019 was not a valid filing and as such, was non est. In response, the petitioner has placed on record an affidavit giving details of filing status as on 15.02.2019 as well as the objections raised by the Registry.

3. Mr. Raman Kapoor, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petition was filed within limitation on 15.02.2019 was a substantive and valid petition complete in all respects. The petition was duly signed and at the time of initial filing, it was accompanied with duly sworn affidavit, the impugned Award and the Vakalatnama. Registry raised objections, which were only procedural, and after removing the defects, the petition was re-filed on 20.03.2019. Again, after removing objections, it was re-filed on 01.04.2019.

While explaining the delay of 9 days in re-filing of the petition, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the counsel on record was present in court premises, when he suffered cardiac pain on 15.02.2019. He was rushed to the RML Hospital and later, underwent stenting procedure on 21.02.2019. After recovery and discharge from the hospital, the counsel could take steps to remove the defects and re-file the petition.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the submissions, contended that the petition filed on 15.02.2019 was incomplete, invalid and barred by limitation. She further submitted that initially the petition contained 81 pages whereas at the time of listing, it comprised of 2686 pages. Learned counsel also referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ircon International Ltd. v. Reacon Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1860.

5. Indisputably, the present petition impugning the Award dated 20.11.2018 was filed on 15.02.2019 i.e. within the statutory period of limitation as prescribed under Section 34 of the A&C Act. The short issue involved in the present case is whether the petition that was filed on 15.02.2019 can be held to be valid and not non est.

The petitioner alongwith his affidavit placed on record the list of defects marked by the Registry at the time of scrutiny. The List indicated that following defects were marked on 16.02.2019: