1. This appeal is directed against the order rendered by the learned Single Judge who has on a due consideration of the material placed before it come to the conclusion that the original filing under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 petition would be non est since it was not accompanied with the Award which was sought to be impugned.

2. We find that the aforesaid question is no longer res integra and stands conclusively answered by the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India,, (2025 SCC Online Del 636) wherein the following observations appear:

“NON-FILING OF THE ARBITRAL AWARD

57. As noted hereinabove, a challenge to an Arbitral Award is maintainable on very limited grounds; it is not in form of an appeal against the Arbitral Award.

58. Section 34(2)(a) of the A&C Act states that an Arbitral Award may be set aside by the Court only if the party making the application “establishes on the basis of the record of the Arbitral Tribunal” that a party was under some incapacity; or the Arbitration Agreement is not valid; or the party making the application was not given proper notice of appointment of an Arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings; or was otherwise unable to present its case; or the Arbitral Award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration for it contains a decision on matters beyond the scope of submission to arbitration; or the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal or the arbitral procedure, was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. The Court may under Section 34(2)(b) of the A&C Act, also set aside an Arbitral Award if it finds that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law for the time being enforced, or the Arbitral Award is in conflict with the public policy of India. Under Sub-Section 2A of Section 34 of the A&C, an Arbitral Award arising out of arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, may also be set aside by the Court, if the Court finds that the Award is vitiated by patent illegality “appearing on the face of the Award”.

59. In our opinion, none of the above conditions can be satisfied unless the Arbitral Award under challenge is placed before the Court. Therefore, filing of the Arbitral Award under challenge along with the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is not a mere procedural formality, but an essential requirement. Non-filing of the same would, therefore, make the application “non-est” in the eyes of the law.

60. In fact, we find that this Court has almost consistently held that non-filing of the Arbitral Award would make the petition “non-est”. Reference in this regard may be made to : SKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd., (supra), SPML Infra Ltd. v. Graphite India Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2808, Air India Ltd., (supra), Reacon Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., (supra), Executive Engineer National Highway Division v. S&P Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1859, ITDC v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 158, NHAI v. KNR Constructions, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 519, Brahamputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. (supra), Panacea Technologies Ltd., (supra), Delhi Development Authority v. Gammon Engineers & Contractors Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5154, Container Corp. of India v. Shivhare Road Lines, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5490, and, Good Health Argo Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6050.

61. Even in both the Judgments which led to the present Reference, that is, in Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises (Sree) &Megha Engineering & Infrastructure Ltd. (Meil) (supra), and in Planetcast Technologies Ltd. (supra), both the Division Benches have held that the filing of the Impugned Arbitral Award is not an empty procedural requirement and is, therefore, absolutely essential. We may first quote from Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineerin