The failure to file essential documents alongside a Section 34 application renders the filing 'non-est', thus failing to stop the limitation period, leading to dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the "A&C Act") challenging the Award dated 29.12.2023 (hereinafter the “impugned award”). The petition is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 63 days in re-filing of the petition.

2. At the outset, the respondents have objected to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of delay by asserting that it is beyond the condonable period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act. In view of this preliminary objection, the Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on the said aspect.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition deserves to be dismissed inasmuch as the initial filing on 28.03.2024, though within the limitation period of 3 months from the award dated 29.12.2023, lacked the requisite documents to constitute a proper filing as the same was not accompanied by a copy of the award, rendering the filing non-est, with the defects being non-curable. The petition, as first filed on 28.03.2024 with only 36 pages, was missing inter alia, impugned Award, Statement of Truth, Vakalatnama, signature of party & counsel and the first re-filing was only made on 29.06.2024, i.e., after 89 days of delay from the date of first objection/defects i.e., on 01.04.2024. While referring to Rule 3(a) of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, it is contended that the defects raised by the Registry were to be necessarily removed within a maximum period of seven days at a time and a total aggregate period of 30 days. It is submitted that the award was still not filed within the condonable period of 30 days and the petitioner failed on both counts and thus the first re-filing done on 29.06.2024 ought to be treated as the actual date of filing of the petition. It is further contended that upon re-filing the petition on 29.06.2024, the petitioner significantly expanded the document length to 1147 pages. Despite this, similar objections persisted, and the petition was again marked as defective and returned for re-filing. Lastly, it is contended that the delay in re-filing also requires a satisfactory explanation, which is lacking, as the petitioner's application for condonation of delay fails to present substantive grounds. In support of the submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on DDA v. Durga Construction Co. , 2013 (319) DRJ 133 (DB), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (Sree) & Meaha Engineering & Infrastructure Limited (Meil), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10456, SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd. v. ISC Projects Private Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8006 and Executive Engineer vs. Shree Ram Construction Co. , (2010) 120 DRJ 615 (DB).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the initial filing, consisting of 36 pages, was submitted without the award and other material documents. However, he contends that this was due to an inadvertent error as the wrong/draft version of the petition was uploaded lacking the Award, Affidavits, Statement of Truth, and other essential documents. It is submitted that the delay in refiling of the petition was on account of DIAC's failure to provide copies of the arbitral records to the petitioner in a timely manner. The petitioner had written to DIAC on 13.03.2024, requesting the certified copies of the arbitral records but were not provided by 28.03.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner again sent an email on 02.05.2024 to the Arbitrator and DIAC, reiterating the request for th