JUDGMENT

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A.No.16576/2011 (for condonation of delay of 2 days in filing the petition)

For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of two days in filing the petition is condoned. The application is disposed of.

I.A.No.16577/2011 (for condonation of delay of 112 days in re-filing the petition)

1. The matter is listed for hearing today. Yet another adjournment is sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who submits that despite of various opportunities granted to the petitioner's counsel to argue the petition, he is reluctant to argue the same. Even today petitioner's counsel seeks an adjournment on the ground that the petitioner wishes to engage senior advocate to argue the petition.

2. The abovementioned objections petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, called the "Act") against the Award dated 24th February, 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator Mr.B.L. Chaudhary.

3. Along with the petition, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 112 days in re-filing the petition. The only ground for such delay stated in the application is that after removing all the objections, the counsel for the petitioner had given the petition to his clerk for re-filing. It is further stated that during the month of May, 2011 the office of the counsel for the petitioner was under renovation and due to the large number of files, the present petition got tied up with the file a disposed of matter due to error on the part of the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner. In the end of July, 2011, the counsel for the petitioner became aware of the fact that the present petition had not been re-filed when the petitioner sought the status of the petition. The clerk sought the status in the Registry and came to know that the present had not been re-filed after removing the objections. The counsel instructed his clerk to locate the file. It took some time to locate the same. It is only on 10th October, 2011 that the clerk while going through the files of certain disposed of matters came across the present petition.

4. The point of delay of re-filing been discussed in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in the case Delhi Transco Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 2012(6) R.A.J. 299 (Del.), the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:

8. The Division Bench in Shree Ram Construction Co. (supra) (which, we may note has been upheld by the Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLPs) in para 29 and 41 observed as follows:

"29. Reliance on the decision in Improvement Trust, Ludhiana Vs. Ujagar Singh, (2010) 6 SCC 786 to the effect that "justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it off on such technicalities and that too at the threshold" is of no avail in the backdrop of the A&C Act which decidedly and calculatedly shuts off curial discretion after the expiry of thirty days beyond three months having elapsed from the date on which a copy of the Award had been received by the appealing party. In the context of the A&C Act, it appears to us that liberality in condoning delay in refiling would run counter to the intention of Parliament which has employed plain language to facially prescribe a cut-off date beyond which there is no latitude for condonation of delay. And this is for very good reason. Across the Globe, it has been accepted that there is a pressing need to bring adjudicatory proceedings to a prompt and expeditious conclusion, especially where commercial and business conflicts arise. We think it wholly impermissible to extend or expand the time for concluding judicial proceedings at the second stage, that is, that of refiling, when this is impermissible at the very initial stage, that is, of filing objections to an aw