Strict adherence to limitation periods under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can accommodate curable procedural defects, provided diligent efforts to comply with requirements are shown.

JUDGMENT

Neena Bansal Krishna, J.

I.A. 13515/2019 (U/s 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 52 days in filing the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A & C Act").

2. It is submitted in the application that the present petition was filed for the first time on 29th June, 2019. However, there was a delay of 52 days in re-filing the present petition since the file got annexed with another file, titled as Sushma vs. Gamesh Mathur, RFA(OS) 31/2018 and the same could not be traced out earlier despite best efforts. Hence, the prayer is made that the delay of 52 days in re-filing the present petition be condoned.

3. The respondent in its Reply has contended that the Award was made on 15th March, 2019. The limitation of three months in filing the objections under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 expired on 13th June, 2019 and on account of the summer vacations of this Court, the objections under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 were filed on 29th June, 2019 i.e., on the day of re-opening of the Court.

4. It is submitted that the re-filing has been done after a delay of 57 days i.e., on 31st August, 2019 which is beyond the period of three months and 30 days on receipt of Award by the petitioner.

5. The conduct of the petitioner was hopelessly inadequate and insufficient that the initial filing of the objections by the petitioner has to be considered as non-est and of no consequence as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) 485-86/2011 dated 07th November, 2013 titled Delhi Development Authority vs. Durga Construction Company which has been followed by this Court in O.M.P. (COMM.) 132/2019 dated 03rd April, 2019 SKS Power Generation (Chhatisgarh Ltd.) vs. ISC Projects Private Ltd., and O.M.P. (COMM.) 187/2019 dated 08th May, 2019 in Director-cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare vs. Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd..

6. It is further asserted that the Statement of Truth has been attested by the petitioner on 27th July, 2019 i.e., after the expiry of three months and 30 days on the receipt of the Award which is beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A & C Act, 1996. Thus, on the last day of the limitation period, no petition with a supporting affidavit was filed before this Court. Hence, the present application along with accompanying petition under Section 34 of A & C Act, 1996 is liable to be dismissed.

7. Written Submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein reliance has been placed on Delhi Development Authority vs. Durga Construction Co., 2013 SCC OnLine Delhi 4451; SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd. vs. ISC Projects Private Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8006 and Director-cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare vs. Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd., MANU/DE/1639/2019.

8. The petitioner in his Rejoinder has reaffirmed his assertions as made in the present application.

9. Submissions heard.

10. Section 34 (3) of the A & C Act, 1996 prescribes the limitation for filing the objections against the Arbitral Awards and reads as under:

"(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under s