IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that inordinate delay in refiling an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without sufficient justification cannot be condoned.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act') impugning the order dated 06.11.2023 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM) No. 452/2023.

2. The appellant had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act assailing an arbitral award dated 17.05.2021 (hereafter `the impugned award'). The appellant's application was dismissed by the learned Single Judge as barred by limitation on account of delay of 755 days in refiling the application. The learned Single Judge had also noted that there was absolutely no reason stated in the application filed explaining the inordinate delay of 755 days in refiling the application.

3. The appellant had filed the application for setting aside the impugned award [OMP (COMM) 452/2023] on 20.09.2021. The said application was beyond the period of three months stipulated for filing the said application under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act. It was also beyond the further period of 30 days, which could be condoned in terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. However, the said application was within time by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020: Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

4. The application as filed, was defective and the Registry had pointed out as many as 28 (twenty-eight) defects. The application was refiled on 23.02.2022 but it continued to be defective. It was thereafter filed on 03.06.2022 but all the defects were not cured and the application was returned. It was next filed almost a year thereafter on 12.04.2023. But once again all the defects were not cured and was returned. It was successively refiled on 16.10.2023, 21.10.2023, 01.11.2023, 02.11.2023 and was returned on each occasion as all the defects were not cured. It was finally listed before the learned Single Judge on 06.11.2023.

5. The copy of the application filed by the appellant for condoning the delay in refiling has not been filed along with the present appeal. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has handed over hard copies of the applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the petition.

6. It is noted that the appellant had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of seven days in filing the appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act. This does appear to be an obvious error as the appellant's application was for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act and not an appeal under Section 37 of the A&C Act. The reasons stated in the application were in general terms. The appellant claimed that the delay was on account of collecting legible copies of documents, which were filed as annexures along with the impugned award. It does appear that such applications are signed giving reasons in general terms for being liberally used. However, as noted above, this application is not relevant. Though the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act was in excess of 30 days but the period for filing had been extended by the Supreme Court by the orders passed in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3/2023: Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

7. The appellant's application seeking condonation of delay of 755 days in refiling the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is dated 13.08.2023 and was supported by an affidavit affirmed on 24.12.2021. It is, thus, apparent that the application was not supported by any affidavit and the appellant had used an earlier affidavit drawn in general terms to support its application. There were no annexures to the said application, yet the accompanying affidavit affirmed that the annexures filed were true copies of their respective originals. This does establish that the affidavit was affirmed without the deponent being aware of