Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In the case of Union of India v. Bharat Biotech International Ltd., the petitions filed by the Union of India were dismissed.
In the above mentioned case, the issues dealt with are as follows:
(i) The Union of India sought for condonation of delay in re-filing of three petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, challenging three different arbitral awards.
(ii) It was contended by the Union of India that the re-filing was done before the statutory period of limitation of 90 days as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act had expired.
(iii) This was opposed by the Respondents on the ground that the petitions filed within the statutory period of limitation were merely a bunch of papers and could not be treated as valid in the eyes of law.
(iv) The first copy comprised of 83 pages and did not include a copy of the impugned Award. Subsequently, after the limitation period had expired, the petition was re-filed with drastic alterations and ran into 441 pages.
(v) The Petitioner reasoned for extension of the prescribed period was that the extra days were required to remove the defects pointed out by the Registry in the voluminous appeal.
Initially, the Delhi High Court Justice Rekha Palli agreed with primary contention that parameters for condoning delay in re-filing differed from those applicable to filing, but later she stated that the issue of the original filing being non-est had to be considered in view of it being a condonation of delay of filing.
The Court considered the question of:
(i) whether the original filing was non-est and a mere bunch
(ii) whether the same was filed in compliance with all legal requirements.
In determining this, the Court relied upon the principles laid down in DDA v. Durga Construction Co. wherein it was held that a party cannot be given the benefit of initial filing if the petitions or applications filed are so hopelessly inadequate and insufficient or contain defects which are fundamental to the institution of the proceedings.
Also, the Court relied upon Executive Engineer v. Shree Ram Construction Co. and SKS Power Generation Ltd. v. ISC Projects Private Limited wherein it was held that non-filing of the impugned award would be fatal.
The Bench, further referred to the decision made in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. wherein the Apex Court held that the Court cannot entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that filing of dummy appeals under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 without the copy of the impugned award are non-est filings. Therefore, they cannot be treated as filed within the limitation period.
86540
103860
630
114
59824