Filings Without Mandatory Documents Not Valid, Date Of Filing To Be Considered When Petition Is Re-Filed With All Materials: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an initial filing unaccompanied with mandatorily required documents could not be considered as a valid filing. Thus, the first date of filing has to be considered the date on which the petition is re-filed with all valid documents.

In this case, the petition was filed against an Arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The respondent in the present dispute opposed the petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The respondent submitted that the petition was filed after the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the impugned award and the petitioner had not filed any application seeking condonation of delay. It was also submitted that the petition as initially filed on 13.09.2019was not accompanied by the impugned award; vakalatnama; and the attested statement of truth and thus, the initial filing was non-est. Further, while acknowledging that the petitioner had re-filed the petition on 24.10.2019, the respondent stated that the same was beyond the period of delay that could be condoned by the Court.

Per contra, the petitioner submitted that while the impugned award was delivered on 10.06.2019, the petitioner only received it on 12.06.2019. The petitioner contended that as per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a petition may not be filed after three months have elapsed from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. Thus, as per the petitioners, 12.09.2019 was the last date on which the petition could have been filed and it was filed on 13.09.2019, after the delay of one day.

The petition in question was marked defective and returned for re-filing multiple times and the petitioner filed an application seeking condonation of delay of thirty-seven days in re-filing the petition, however, the petitioner did not file any application seeking delay in filing the petition.

Thus, the question before the court was whether the initial filing was valid.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Vibhu Bakhru noted that the initial filing was not accompanied by a copy of the award or a statement of truth, which is mandatorily required. Further, while the initial filing was just seventy three pages long, the subsequent filing was 1325 pages long. Thus, the court held that it was apparent that the entire framework of the petition was changed.

The court also opined that–

"It is also material to note that the petition as filed on 13.09.2019 was not accompanied by the impugned award or the vakalatnama…In the circumstances, 24.10.2019 is required to be considered as the first date of filing of the present petition. The delay in filing the petition is, thus, beyond the period that can be condoned by this Court."

The petition was accordingly dismissed as barred by limitation.

Case Title: IRCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. REACON ENGINEERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 607

Click Here To Read Order