Technical Deficiencies, Including Pagination And Affidavit Attestation, Do Not Render Section 34 Under A&C Act Non-Est: Delhi High Court

The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that every objection in the filing would not render a petition non-est and it is only the defects that goes to the root of the matter that would make the filing non-est.

Facts

The petitioner contested an Arbitral Award issued on 15.03.2019 and filed the petition on 10.07.2019. The initial filing on 29.06.2019 faced issues as it was deemed non est due to procedural errors. Notably, instead of following the appropriate format, a company petition was erroneously filed, rendering the first attempt ineffective.

Subsequently, on 10.07.2019, the petitioner refiled the petition, encountering objections from the Registry, including pagination concerns, jurisdictional matters, and the attestation of affidavits. The petitioner diligently addressed these objections during subsequent clearance attempts on 30.07.2019, 01.08.2019, and 02.08.2019.

Submissions by the Parties

• The respondent contended that the filing on 10.07.2019 was time-barred, non est, and that the defects were non-curable. The petitioner countered, asserting that the defects were procedural and curable, promptly addressing the objections raised by the Registry.
• Registry objections encompassed issues such as incomplete pagination, concerns about pecuniary jurisdiction, and the attestation of affidavits. The respondent argued that the objections, if not rectified within seven days, should result in the petitioner being non-suited.

Analysis by the Court

The Court thoroughly examined the objections raised by the Registry, including pagination, underlining, and jurisdictional concerns. Unlike objections that render a filing non est, such as lacking essential signatures or approvals, the observed defects were procedural in nature. The Court distinguished between defects that strike at the root of the filing's validity and those that are curable through rectification.

Emphasizing the intelligibility of the filing, the Court referred to prior cases to underscore the importance of meeting the basic requirements for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Registry objections were deemed procedural and curable, and the non-removal within seven days did not render the subsequent re-filing as non est.

The Court exercised its discretion liberally under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, considering the petitioner's satisfactory explanation. Factors contributing to the delay included procedural objections and the closure of the Registry during summer vacations, providing a reasonable basis for the Court to condone the delay.

Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262

Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:8646

Date: 04.12.2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Percival Billimoria, Senior Advocate with Mr Shekhar Kumar, Mr Gandharav Anand, Ms Jasmine Damkewala, Mr Aditya Raj, Ms. Rachita Sood, Mr. Divyam Khera, Mr Divyam Khera, Mr Advait Joshi and Ms. Nishtha Tyagi, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Payal Chawla, Ms. Latika Arora, Advocates

Click Here To Read/Download Order