JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act of 1996”] assails the Arbitral Award dated 03.01.2024, along with the Corrigendum dated 02.03.2024 rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. The dispute emanates from a contract executed between the applicant [Union of India, through the Joint Secretary (DPA-3), Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India] and the respondent, which is a joint venture entity of M/s GR-Gawar, for the “upgradation of existing roads to paved standards in the Terai region of Nepal, Phase-I [Contract Package-01]”.

3. Following the dispute between the parties, an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted, culminating in the impugned award dated 03.01.2024, subsequently modified by the corrigendum dated 02.03.2024.

4. The applicant herein challenges the impugned award and corrigendum by way of the instant application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. At this juncture, no detailed recitation of the substantive controversy is required, as the preliminary issue of limitation is itself dispositive.

5. On advance instructions, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present application, asserting that the same is barred by limitation. Learned counsel contends that though the applicant purportedly filed the application on 20.06.2024, such filing was deficient, inter alia, due to the non-filing of the impugned award itself, rendering it non est in the eyes of law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Joint Venture of Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises & Megha Engineering and

Infrastructures Ltd, (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6088). She has further placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India, (2025 SCC OnLine Del 636) to contend that the failure to attach the impugned award would render the Section 34 application filing as non-est.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has sought condonation of delay on the ground that the application, having been filed on 20.06.2024, suffered with a delay of only 18 days beyond the prescribed limitation period of 90 days, which expired on 02.06.2024. He contends that such delay, being within the additional permissible period of 30 days contemplated under the proviso of Section 34(3) of the Act, is condonable on account of bona fide and exceptional circumstances causing the delay.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

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 to the applicant on 29.06.2024. These defects broadly included non-signing of each page of the

pleadings by the applicant, absence of a statement of truth, discrepancy in the memo of parties, wherein, it was filed as a normal application while other documents indicated a commercial dispute, and inconsistencies in the Vakalatnama.

10. Moreover, certain electronic records submitted were not accompanied by the requisite declaration on oath. The filing also lacked necessary averments concerning maintainability based on pecuniary jurisdiction, and crucial procedural requirements, such as submission of the E-Court fee receipt, o