Without Copy of Challenged Arbitral Award, Impossible To Consider Grounds To Set Aside Award: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner approached the Delhi High Court and challenged an Arbitral Award, invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). Alongside the petition, the Petitioner submitted applications for condonation of delays: 16 days in filing and 846 days in re-filing. The court allowed petitions by order.

Subsequently, the Respondent, raised a preliminary objection. It argued that the original filing of the petition was invalid, and although defects were rectified after the statutory limitation period of three months and the maximum condonable period of thirty days, the petition remained time-barred.

In response to this objection, the High Court, via an order, requested log information regarding the filing of the petition from the Registry. Upon examination of the log information, both parties acknowledged various defects in the original filing, notably the absence of the impugned award.

The Petitioner, conceded that neither the Petitioner nor its counsel possessed records pertaining to the original filing of the petition. It acknowledged the details provided in the log information by the Registry, indicating that the award was not filed until after the maximum condonable period of three months plus thirty days had elapsed.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court referred to its decision in ONGC v. Sai Rama Engineering Enterprises [2023 SCC OnLine Del 63] and highlighted the indispensable requirements for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It stressed the necessity of stating the grounds for challenging the arbitral award and filing a copy of the award itself. The High Court underscored that without a copy of the challenged award, it would be impossible to comprehend the grounds for setting it aside. The failure to file the award renders the filing incomplete. Thus, it held that it was unavoidable to conclude that the original filing of the petition was deficient, rendering it non-est and consequently barred by limitation.

Addressing the significant delay of 846 days in re-filing the petition, the High Court considered the Petitioner's plea for condonation of delay. While part of the delay was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdown, approximately 400 days were not attributable to these circumstances. The Petitioner's explanation for this delay was insufficient, merely citing difficulties in locating old documents due to the closure of a project in Korba, Chhattisgarh, and a vague assertion of communication gaps between the petitioner and its counsel. These reasons, in the High Court's view, did not adequately justify such a substantial delay. Despite the general leniency towards condoning delays in re-filing petitions, the Petitioner failed to meet even the minimal requirement of demonstrating due diligence.

Consequently, considering the lack of diligence in re-filing the petition and the failure to meet the statutory requirements, the High Court concluded that the petition was barred by limitation and dismissed it along with any pending applications.

Case Title: Spml Infra Limited vs Ntpc Limited

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 353

Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 107/2021, I.A. 3723/2021 & I.A. 3726/2021

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ayush Agarwala and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocates.

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Animesh Sinha, Mr. Shubham Budhiraja and Ms. Ishita Pandey, Advocates.

Click Here To Read/Download Order