JUDGMENT

I.A. 6933/2022 (u/s 34 (3) of A&C Act for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing)

1. By this judgement, I proceed to consider and dispose of the respondent’s objections as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of it being non-est and time barred as well as petitioner’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing of the petition.

2. Pertinently, the petitioner has preferred the present petition impugning the Arbitral Award dated 15.03.2019 (hereafter, referred to as ‘the impugned Award’) passed by Sole Arbitrator. Indisputably the impugned Award was rendered and delivered to the parties on the same day.

3. The issues that arise for consideration are whether the petition is liable to be dismissed, due to the initial filing being non est and whether the delay in filing and re-filing of the petition has been sufficiently explained.

4. The factual matrix reveals that initially a petition assailing the impugned award was filed with the Registry of this Court on 29.06.2019, i.e., the first day of reopening after the summer vacations. The e-log of the said petition reveals that Registry had raised certain objections. Apparently, instead of filing the petition in the appropriate format, a company petition had been filed. Petitioner concedes that the petition filed on 29.06.2019 was non est.

5. Notably, the present petition was filed on 10.07.2019. Registry again raised defects albeit different from the earlier ones. Petitioner cleared the defects on 30.07.2019. Another set of defects were pointed out on 31.07.2019 which were cleared on 01.08.2019. Lastly, the defects were pointed out on 02.08.2019, which were cleared on the same day.

6. Petitioner claims that the three months statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the A&C Act computed from the date of receipt of the impugned award i.e., from 15.03.2019 expired during the period the Registry was closed on account of summer vacations i.e., on 15.06.2019. The present petition filed on 10.07.2019 is within the extended period of limitation, the delay being only 25 days, which has been sufficiently explained.

7. Respondent while referring to the ‘objection sheets’ contended that not only was the filing of the petition on 10.07.2019 time barred, the same was also non est, the defects being non-curable. Petitioner has also not explained 25 days’ delay from 10.07.2019 to 02.08.2019. The delay in re-

filing is also required to be satisfactorily explained. While referring to Rule 3 of Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, it was contended that the defects raised by the Registry were to be necessarily removed within a maximum period of seven days and a total aggregate period of 30 days. Petitioner failed on both counts and thus the last re-filing done on 02.08.2019 ought to be considered as the date of filing of the petition thereby making the total delay to be of 48 days, which cannot be condoned. Lastly, it was contended that in the captioned application, petitioner’s stand is contrary to its earlier stand and further, the application itself is filed belatedly on 03.05.2022 essentially being an afterthought, and ought not to be considered. Reliance was placed on the decisions in DDA v. Durga Construction Co.1, DSIIDC Ltd. v. Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd.2, Delhi Transco Ltd. & Anr. v. Hythro Engineers Pvt. Ltd.3, Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. v. IDEB Projects (P) Ltd.4 and National Higways Authority of India v. Patel-Knr (JV)5 among others.

8. In rejoinder submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent’s reliance on ‘Codes’ mentioned in the log information provided by the Registry were not the correct indicators as they do not point out the exact defect and rather refer to a pool of defects. In the e-log, the exact defect is pointed out. Each time the petitioner removed the defects, the Registry pointed out fresh defects. Reference was made to the decision of a Coordinate