Statutory limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is strict and cannot be relaxed without sufficient justification; defective petitions lead to being treated as non-est.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award (hereafter the `impugned award') dated 01.09.2019 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of Mr B.D. Joshi, former Engineer-in-Chief, Himachal Pradesh PWD, Mr Kamlesh Kumar, former Additional Director General, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India and Mr. S.N. Das, former Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary to the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India as the Presiding Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The respondent has opposed the present petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. According to it, the application filed by the petitioner (I.A. No.3009/2020) seeking condonation of delay of forty-four days in filing the petition is liable to be rejected as this Court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry of three months. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner's application (I.A. No.3008/2020) seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the petition, is also liable to be dismissed. He submits that the petition, as initially filed on 13.01.2020, was non-est as it was not accompanied by the Arbitral Award; it was not signed; and the vakalatnama was defective. In addition, the petitioner had not filed any documents along with the petition. It has also not filed hard-copy of the petition as required. He referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India vs. Bharat Biotech International Ltd., 2020 SCC online Del 483: in support of his contention that such a filing was liable to be considered as non-est.

3. The impugned award was rendered on 01.09.2019. Thus, three months' period for filing the petition expired on 01.12.2019. The petition was filed for the first time on 13.01.2020, which was beyond the period of thirty days after expiry of three months from the date of the impugned award.

4. Undisputedly, the delay beyond thirty days after expiry of three months as provided under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, cannot be condoned. However, the petitioner claims that it had received the impugned award on 16.09.2019 and therefore, the petition was filed within the period of thirty days after expiry of the period of three months and the said delay can be condoned.

5. There is considerable controversy on the question whether the petitioner had received the impugned award on 16.09.2019 as claimed. Initially, it was contended before this Court that the award was received by post, however, there is no material to establish that the same was received on 16.09.2019. In the circumstances, on 21.08.2018, this Court issued an order directing the petitioner to file an affidavit as to the manner in which the award was received and the date on which it was received.

6. In compliance with the said order, the petitioner filed an affidavit affirmed by the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Bhagalpur stating that the impugned award was received on 16.09.2019 by hand in Patna from the representative of the Arbitral Tribunal. The award was rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal at New Delhi and it is difficult to understand as to why a representative of the Arbitral Tribunal would have delivered the same by hand in Patna. Further, the record also does not indicate as to who had delivered the award and to wh