CHINTELS INDIA LIMITED Vs. BHAYANA BUILDERS PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 16646/2019 (take on record typed copies of documents)

(2.) These are applications filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 28 days in filing and 16 days in re-filing the petition, respectively. It is admitted in the application that the petition was filed beyond the initial 3 months limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Act. It is stated that the counsel in the present petition was not appearing for the Petitioner before the Arbitral Tribunal and the case was being prosecuted by another counsel. After the Tribunal published the Award, the counsel appearing before the Tribunal, expressed his inability to continue further in the matter and returned the record. Present counsel received the record in or around third week of August. Given the voluminous record and complex and technical nature of the issues, it was not possible to file the application immediately. It is further averred that the delay is not deliberate and could not have been avoided by the Petitioner. It needs to be noted that this is the only reason given in the application filed for condonation of delay. However, during the arguments, counsel for the petitioner raised number of grounds in support of condonation of delay, none of which finds mention in the application.

(3.) It was argued that on receipt of the Award on 08.05.2019, petition was filed on 30.08.2019, which was within 30 days extended period available under Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act. Petition was complete in all respects as it was supported by a Vakalatnama, signed by the counsels and Authorized Representative, along with a Board Resolution dated 30.08.2019. Only the Welfare Stamp and identification of the signatory were missing, which is a curable defect, as held by the Court in the case of P.C. Bidwai vs. AIIMS,2003 SCCOnLineDel 244. Petition though not signed on each page by the Petitioner, was signed on the last page and non-signing on each page can be condoned as held in the case of Cdr. S.P. Puri vs. APMC,2019 SCCOnLineDel 9861. Affidavit supporting the Petition was signed, verified and attested. The address of the deponent mentioned in the Affidavit was of Ghaziabad but inadvertently, the words "presently in New Delhi" were omitted. However, Section 57 read with Section 114 of Evidence Act, 1872 provide a presumption in favour of the attestation being correct. Duly signed, verified and attested Statement of Truth was filed, though there were some blanks in some portions, which was an inadvertent error and curable, as held in the judgments in the case of Sudhakar Singh & Anr. vs. Webkul Software Pvt. Ltd.,2020 SCCOnLineDel 436 and Cargo Planners Limited vs. Alpasso International Engineering Company & Ors., being CS (Comm) 127/2017, decided on 31.07.2019.