The absence of a condonation application renders a challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act invalid if filed beyond the statutory limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

JASPREET SINGH, J.

Introduction

1. An award dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Facilitation Council, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Facilitation Council) is in the legal vortex between the petitioner and the private respondent no.1. Both contesting parties are at logger heads. The present petitioner is at pains to get the said award executed whereas the private respondent no.1 is leaving no stone unturned in challenging the said award on all possible grounds.

2. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner filed petition No.3886 of 2024 assailing the orders dated 17.01.2024 and order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No.3 of 2024 whereby the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner have been turned down.

3. After the preliminary objections were turned down, the petitioner moved an application for releasing the amount deposited by the respondent no.1 which has been allowed vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Commercial Court No.2, Lucknow in the aforesaid Arbitration Case No.3 of 2024 and being aggrieved, the private respondent no.1 herein, filed an independent petition assailing the said order by means of the connected Petition No.5145 of 2024.

4. Since the issue involved in these two petitions are between the same parties and interconnected, hence both the petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

5. For convenience, M/s Genebio Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter, will be referred to as the "petitioner" whereas Paradigm Enterprises (who is the petitioner of the connected petition) will be referred to as the "contesting respondent".

Factual Matrix

6. Before proceedings further, it will be appropriate to notice the facts giving rise to the instant petition. The contesting respondent no.1 acting as an authorized distributor of the petitioner company had made a bid on GEM Portal and was successful in getting an order to supply 20 lakh Novel Coronavirus Sample Collection Kit. The aforesaid order was placed with the petitioner and it was supplied directly to the U.P. Medical Supplies Corporation. Though the contesting respondent received the entire payment of Rs.1,27,12,739/- but it was not paid to the petitioner. In this factual background, the petitioner made a reference under section 18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006) before the Facilitation Council who after hearing the parties made its award on 27.09.2023.

7. The contesting respondent assailed the said award dated 27.09.2023 by filing a writ petition before a Division Bench of this Court bearing Writ-C No.8511 of 2023 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2023, leaving it open for the contesting respondent to assail the said award in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) before the appropriate court.

8. The contesting respondent then on 16.01.2024 filed a petition before the Commercial Court Lucknow under section 34 of the Act of 1996 which was registered as Arbitration Case No.3 of 2024.

9. The said case was registered on 17.01.2024 and notices were issued to the petitioner (who was the respondent in the petition under section 34 of the Act of 1996). The petitioner after having put in appearance before the Commercial Lucknow filed his preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the petition under sec