A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must be complete and timely; failure to include required documents leads to dismissal as barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 10.06.2019 (hereinafter `the impugned award') delivered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter `the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of the disputes that have arisen between the parties in connection with an agreement dated 16.06.2010 (hereinafter `the Agreement').

3. The respondent has opposed the present petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The respondent submits that the above- petition has been filed after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award. Further, the petitioner has not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petition as initially filed was not accompanied by the impugned award; vakalatnama; and the attested statement of truth. The petition as filed was also not signed. He submits that initial filing was non-est. The petitioner had refiled the petition on 24.10.2019; however, that was beyond the period of delay that could be condoned by this Court.

4. Mr Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Bharat Biotech International Ltd, (2020) SCC OnLine Del 483: in support of his contention. He also referred to the decision of this Court in INX News Pvt. Ltd. v. Pier One Construction Pvt. Ltd., O.MP. No. 673 of 2013, decided on 11.11.2013, and contended that the petition as filed on 24.10.2019 could not be considered as the same petition that was filed on 13.09.2019.

5. The impugned award was delivered on 10.06.2019. The petitioner claims that it had received the impugned award on 12.06.2019. In terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a petition under Section 34 may not be filed after three months have elapsed from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Thus, 12.09.2019 was the last date on which the petitioner could have filed the above-captioned petition.

6. The petitioner had filed the petition on 13.09.2019, that is, after the delay of one day after expiry of a period of three months. It is material to note that in all, seventy-three pages were filed.

7. The filing log indicates that apart from listing sixteen different kinds of defects, the Registry had also commented as under:

"User Comments: Description of any other defects:

TOTAL 73 PAGES FILED WITHOUT BOOKMARKING WITHOUT PAGINATION. STATEMENT OF TRUTH/AFFIDAVIT NOT ATTESTED. NO DOCUMENTS FILED. NO AWARD FILED. VAKALATNAMA NOT FILED. IN ADDITION TO THE E-FILING, IT IS MANDATORY TO FILE HARD COPIES OF THE FRESH MATTERS FILED UNDER SECTION 9,11, AND 34 OF THE ARB. ACT. 1996 WITH EFFECT FROM 22.10.2018."

8. The petition was marked defective and returned for re-filing on 16.09.2019.

9. The petition was re-filed on 24.10.2019. The file log indicates that this time a total number of 1325 (one thousand three hundred and twenty-five) pages were filed. However, the petition was still defective and was returned for re-filing on 30.10.2019. It was, thereafter, re-filed on 06.11.2019 but was once again found to be defective. It was returned for re-filing on 13.11.2019. The petition was re-filed on 14.11.2019. It was marked as defective yet again and returned for re-filing on 15.11.2019. The petitioner filed the same on 18.11.2019 as certain defects were not cured. It was finally re-filed on 19.11.2019.

10. The petitioner has filed