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.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present petition filed under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , [A&C Act], read with Section 151 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 , [CPC], challenges theArbitral Award dated 02.06.2023 , [Arbitral Award] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Case Ref. No. DAC/897/03-15.

2. Before adverting to the merits of the challenge laid under Section 34 of the A&C Act, this Court deems it appropriate to first examine the aspect of condonation of delay and the plea of non-est filing raised in the present proceedings. The determination of these preliminary issues goes to the very root of the matter and would decide whether the present petition survives for consideration on merits.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to briefly set out the necessary and undisputed facts, insofar as they are relevant for the adjudication of the preliminary issue concerning limitation, which are delineated hereunder:

(i) The Petitioner is a statutory corporation constituted under the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. The Respondent is a partnership firm engaged in architectural and engineering consultancy services. The parties entered into a Contract dated 03.06.2009 for providing consultancy services in relation to the proposed construction of an ESI Medical College and Hospital at Bhubaneswar, Odisha.

(ii) Disputes arose between the parties with respect to payments claimed under various stages of the contract. The Respondent invoked arbitration, which culminated in the Arbitral Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, whereby the claims of the Respondent were partly allowed and the counterclaims of the Petitioner were dismissed.

(iii)The Petitioner has sought to assail the aforesaid Arbitral Award by instituting the present petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act. Along with the said petition, the Petitioner had initially filed an application beingI.A. No. 1596/2024 under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking condonation of a delay of 59 days in re-filing the petition.

(iv)Subsequently, upon a request made on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court granted liberty to file an appropriate application seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the main petition. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner filed an application beingI.A. No. 45151/2024 under Section 5 of theLimitation Act, 1963, [Limitation Act] read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking condonation of a delay of 29 days in filing the petition. In support thereof, the Petitioner, inter alia, contended that the signed copy of the Arbitral Award was received only on 05.09.2023, in accordance with Section 31 (5) of the A&C Act; therefore, the limitation for filing this petition would begin from that day.

(v) The Respondent opposed the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, contending that the initial filing dated 02.10.2023 was non est in the eyes of law on account of fundamental defects and non-compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. It was further contended that the first valid filing of the petition was effected only on 20.01.2024, which was beyond the outer limit prescribed under (3) of the A&C Act, and consequently, the present petition is barred by limitation.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner would contend that th