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.

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 Holder (who is the Respondent in the Objection Petition) under Section 36 of the A&C Act, read with Order XXI and Section 151 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 , CPC seeking enforcement of the aforesaid Impugned Arbitral Award against the Award Debtor (who is the Petitioner in the Objection Petition).

3. For the sake of convenience and consistency, the ranks and references of the parties hereinafter shall be described as in the Objection Petition, unless the context otherwise requires.

I.A.-43177/2024 (delay 25 days in filing the present petition) in O.M.P. (COMM) 452/2024 I.A.-45918/2024 (dismissal of Petition U/S 34 of A&C Act) in O.M.P. (COMM) 452/2024

4. In the Objection Petition, a preliminary issue has arisen regarding delay in filing the said petition. The Petitioner, along with the Petition, has filed I.A. No. 43177/2024 seeking condonation of a delay of 25 days in filing of the Objection Petition.

5. The Respondent, on the other hand, has filed I.A. No. 45918/2024 seeking dismissal of the Objection Petition on the ground of limitation.

6. In view of these competing applications, it has become necessary and expedient to determine the said applications at the threshold. Accordingly, prior to examining the challenge to the Impugned Arbitral Award on merits under Section 34 of the A&C Act, this Court considers it appropriate to first adjudicate upon the issue of condonation of delay and the objection regarding non est filing raised by the Respondent in the present Petition.

7. The determination of these preliminary objections goes to the very root of maintainability and shall decide whether the Objection Petition can be entertained on merits. The fate of the Objection Petition is therefore contingent upon the outcome of these applications, and consequently, the fate of the Enforcement Petition shall also abide by the determination thereof.

8. Before adverting to the aspect of limitation, it is necessary to briefly set out the factual background relevant to the present proceedings:

(a) The Respondent is a public limited company engaged for over three decades in the business of execution of construction contracts and projects and has had a longstanding association with the Military Engineer Services, MES, whereas the Petitioner is an organisation under the Ministry of Defence, MoD, Government of India, entrusted with the award of contracts for construction of married accommodation and allied infrastructure for personnel of the Defence Force.

(b) A contract was entered into between the Parties under the aegis of the Married Accommodation Project, MAP for the execution of construction works as well as completion of incomplete dwelling units at a defence establishment at Meerut (East).

(c) Upon disputes having arisen with regard to measurements, payments