Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Varindera Constructions Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition under arbitration act seeking to set aside an arbitral award. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. preliminary issues on delay and maintainability of the objection petition. (Para 4 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's arguments for condonation of delay in filing. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 4. respondent's counterarguments emphasizing strict limitation. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 21) |
| 5. court's analysis on sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. (Para 23 , 24 , 30) |
| 6. conclusion on non-est filing and its impact on limitation. (Para 34 , 35 , 46) |
| 7. final conclusion dismissing the objection petition due to limitation. (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The Objection Petition, beingO.M.P. (COMM) 452/2024, has been instituted under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, seeking setting aside of theArbitral Award dated 02.05.2024,as subsequently amended/corrected vide Order dated 12.06.2024 , Impugned Arbitral Award, rendered by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the disputes arising between M/s Varindera Constructions Limited and Union of India.
2. The Enforcement Petition, beingO.M.P.(ENF.)(COMM.) 208/2025, has been filed by the Award
An application to set aside an arbitral award must adhere strictly to procedural requirements, failing which it may be deemed non-est, thereby barring the challenge by limitation.
The court ruled that statutory timelines under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are strict and failure to properly file within these limits results in dismissal as barred by limitation.
The Court emphasized the importance of diligence in addressing procedural defects and allowed the condonation of delay based on the petitioner's consistent efforts to rectify the objections.
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.
Scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
