Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46589
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J
M/S MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
M/S BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1405 OF 2025 | OPARB NO.69 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.LAL K.JOSEPH, SHRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR), SMT.T.A.LUXY, SHRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SHRI.SURESH SUKUMAR, SRI.ANZIL SALIM, SHRI.SANJAY SELLEN, SMT.SONIA SHIBU
For the Respondents: SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA, SRI.P.PRIJITH, SRI.PRAKHAR DEEP, SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.)
The court upheld that minor procedural defects in arbitration filings that are cured within time frames do not invalidate the petition's maintainability.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Maintainability of petition - Challenge against arbitral award - Dismissal of maintainability application - Issues of Electronic Filing Rules and defects in filing addressed. (Para 3)
(B) Limitation and curable defects - Filing of the application within limitation - Physical filing's acceptance and defects curing addressed - An error in the trial court's dismissal of the petition asserted. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of their application questioning the maintainability of the arbitration challenge initiated by the respondent. The respondent filed a challenge under Section 34, which faced alleged defects as per Electronic Filing Rules.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that there was no excessive delay beyond limitation for filing the challenge as it allowed for curing defects.
Issues: The main issues involved whether the arbitration challenge was maintainable and regarding adherence to Electronic Filing Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that curable defects do not disqualify a petition when filed within prescribed timeframes as stipulated under Section 34.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petition seeks to challenge the maintainability of the arbitration process. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. details the grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the defects and their implications for maintainability. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. the court evaluates the arguments and reaffirms the acceptance of physical filings despite defects. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. ultimately, the petition is dismissed with emphasis on curing defects as per regulations. (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. the court articulates its reasoning against dismissal based on minor procedural errors. (Para 9 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15 th day of October, 2025
This petition is filed by the petitioner/respondent seeking to set aside the order dated 10.04.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No. 4 of 2025 in O.P. (Arb) No. 69 of 2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of the Arbitration Petition filed by the respondent under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘A&C Act’) was dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Commercial Court is that the respondent filed a petition OP (Arb) No.69 of 2024 under Section 34 of the A&C Act by challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator dated 14.8.2024. The petition has been filed on 26.11.2024. After appearance of the petitioner (respondent) before the Commercial court, the IA No.4 of 2025 has been filed on the ground of maintainability, as there is a violation of Rule 13 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 (herein after referred to as the ‘E-Filing Rules’) and the hard copy of the petition has been filed before the Commercial court on 26.11.2024 which was returned back for curing the defect. Subsequently, the defect was cured and filed the same by the respondent within 17.12.2024. There is a violation of Rule 13 of the E-filing Rules, and the respondents have also not obtained exemption under Rule 10 of the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. Therefore, the petition contains numerous defects. Since accepting the physical filing was beyond the period of limitation and in violation of the Electronic Filing Rules, the petition ought not to have been accepted for filing by the Commercial Court. Therefore, the very petition was not maintainable, and the rejection of the application by the trial court is not correct. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the trial court committed an error in dismissing the petition holding that the petition is within the time, under only curable defects and the other counsel relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Ors. (MANU/DE/0710/2025) and also the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in Padmaja Devi v. Vidhya 2025 (KLT online 2511).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended by filing an additional documents obtained by the petitioner from the Registry of the Commercial Court under the RTI Act, wherein the Registry has given reply to the questions and information sought by the petitioner, wherein there is no defect in the server of e-filing portal of the District Judiciary as on 26.11.2024 and there were 42 cases filed on the same date before the District court through e-portal. Thus, the contends of the respondents are not correct that there was a problem in the e-portal service and hence prayed for setting aside the order under challenge.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the trial court, contending that the arbitral award was passed on 14.08.2024 and that the copy of the award was received on 27.8.2024. The respondent required to file petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act within three months, plus 30 days under (3) o
