$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 22.03.2024 + FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2024 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr Rajesh Gogna, CGSC with Ms Priya Singh, Ms Shivangi Jain and Mr Vinod Kumar, Advocates.

versus M/S PNSC INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)

CM APPL. 18343/2024

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2024 and CM APPL. 18342/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in O.M.P. (COMM) 2/2024 and I.A. 135/2024.

3. Via the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant/UOI [I.A. 135/2024]. Pursuant to this dismissal, the learned Single Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL FAO(OS)(COMM)No.63/2024 Page 1 of 7 Judge disposed of the petition [and all pending applications] filed by the appellant i.e., Union of India [hereafter referred to as “UOI”] under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereafter referred to as “Arbitration Act”] against the arbitral award dated 20.07.2021.

4. The short ground on which the petition and the application for condonation of delay have been dismissed is that they were preferred beyond the period of limitation.

4.1 The dates and events relevant to the issue were captured by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 3 of the impugned order.

4.2 For convenience, the table set out by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 3 of the judgment is extracted hereafter:

4.3 As would be evident, the initial filing of the Section 34 petition before the District Court was beyond the period of three (3) months prescribed in sub-section (3) of the said Section.

5. However, via order dated 18.07.2023, the learned District Judge in whose Court the Section 34 petition was instituted returned the petition to counsel for the appellant/UOI and directed the appellant/UOI to file the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL FAO(OS)(COMM)No.63/2024 Page 2 of 7 petition before this Court, albeit, within thirty (30) days of return of the petition.

5.1 Concededly, the appellant/UOI did not file the petition in this Court within thirty (30) days, as directed by the learned District Judge. The petition was filed only on 27.11.2023.

5.2 In fact, the report of the Registry of this Court shows that the Section 34 petition was filed only on 21.12.2023 [See pdf page 1 of OMP (COMM) 2/2024], even beyond the date mentioned in the Section 34 petition i.e., 27.11.2023.

6. The aforementioned dates and events would show that the appellant/UOI applied for obtaining a certified copy of the order only on

04.10.2023, which was received by the appellant/UOI on 17.10.2023.

7. Therefore, there was delay even in applying for a certified copy.

8. Even after receiving the certified copy on 17.10.2023, the appellant/UOI waited for close to sixty-five (65) days before filing the Section 34 petition before this Court. As noted above, the petition was filed on 21.1