HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Appeal has been instituted under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 1, read with Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , challenging the Judgment dated 24.04.20252 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (COMM) No. 38/2025. By the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act filed by the Appellant on the ground of delay, holding that the same was barred by limitation.

2. The present dispute finds its origin in a contract awarded by the Ministry of External Affairs to the Respondent for the upgradation of existing roads in the Terai Region of Nepal.

3. In accordance with the terms of the contract, the disputes that arose between the parties were first referred to a Dispute Review Expert3. The learned DRE, after considering the respective claims, recommended a partial allowance of the Respondent’s claims along with post-award interest.

4. Dissatisfied with the learned DRE’s recommendations, both parties invoked the arbitration clause, leading to the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, the learned Arbitral Tribunal rendered an Award dated 03.01.2024, which was subsequently modified through a Corrigendum dated 02.03.2024.

5. The Appellant, being aggrieved by the Arbitral Award, filed a Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, before the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, the said filing suffered from several procedural deficiencies, including non-payment of requisite court fees and omission of essential documents.

6. Upon scrutiny, the Registry found the filing to be incomplete and non-compliant with procedural requirements as mandated by the Rules of this Court. Although the Appellant made attempts to rectify these defects, the final re-filing of the Petition was made on 20.01.2025, which was beyond the statutory period of 120 days prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act.

7. The learned Single Judge, while considering the Appellant’s application for condonation of delay being IA No. 1633/2025, dismissed the Petition on the ground that the initial incomplete filing could not be treated as a valid filing, and that the subsequent re-filing was beyond the permissible time limit. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal, contending that the procedural lapses were curable in nature and that the 170-day delay in filing ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice.

8. Along with the aforesaid application, the Appellant also filed another application being IA No. 1635/2025, seeking condonation of an additional delay of 211 days in the re-filing of the Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

9. In view of the foregoing background, the solitary issue that requires consideration is as to whether the initial filing of the Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act was, in effect, non-est filing, and whether the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act is barred by limitation.

10. In our considered view, it is appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the Impugned Judgment, as it provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis, addressing both the factual matrix and the applicable law thereon. The relevant excerpts from the Impugned Judgment are as follows:-

“8. The moot question involved in the instant application pertains to whether the filing dated 20.06.2025 in question is only a “defective” filing or “non est” in the eyes of law?

9. In order to ascertain the exact date of filing and subsequent rectifications made by the applicant, this Court, vide order dated 03.04.2025, directed the Registry to furnish a detailed report. From a perusal of the report, it emerges that the original filing by the applicant, dated 20.06.2024, comprised approximately 146 pages. However, upon scrutiny, several defects were identified and subsequently intimated t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document