The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the non-filing of the Arbitral Award under challenge along with the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, would make the application “non-est” and if the initial filing is held to be non-est, the date of filing must be reckoned from the date of refiling.

The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, challenging the impugned Arbitral Award. The petition was accompanied by an application for condonation of a delay of 63 days in re-filing the petition.

Referring to the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Another (2025) and the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Ambrosia Corner House Pvt. Ltd. v. Hangro S. Foods (2023), the Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri explained, “ The reliance placed by the learned counsel of the petitioner on the decision in Ambrosia Corner House (Supra) to argue that the absence of the award at the time of the initial filing does not render the petition non-est is found misplaced in view of the observation made by the Full Bench of this Court in Pragati Constructions (Supra).”

Advocate Jinendra Jain represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Sangeeta Sondhi represented the Respondent.

Facts Of The Case

The factual position was that the award under challenge came to be passed on December 29, 2023. The impugned award was served upon the parties on the same day by the Sole Arbitrator vide an e-mail. The limitation period of 3 months for filing the petition expired on March 28, 2024. The maximum condonable period of delay lapsed on April 27, 2024. The present petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act first came to be filed on March 28, 2024. The said petition was under objection on April 1, 2024. It was marked as defective, and the petition came to be refiled on June 29, 2024.

Issue

The issues that arose for consideration were whether the petition is liable to be dismissed due to the initial filing being non-est and whether the delay in filing/re-filing of the petition has been sufficiently explained.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act prescribes the grounds for making an application to challenge an award but does not specify any procedure for filing such an application.

In order to explain what would amount to a non-est filing, the Bench referred to the judgment in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India and Another (2025) wherein it has been observed that the filing of the Arbitral Award under challenge along with the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is not a mere procedural formality, but an essential requirement. Non-filing of the same would, therefore, make the application “non-est” in the eyes of the law.

The Bench was of the view that given the nature of defects pointed out by the Registry on April 1, 2024 and the petitioner’s failure to re-file the petition within the maximum condonable period of 30 days after 3 months, the petition filed on March 28, 2024, without the award was not a valid filing. It was noticed that the copy of the award was sent to both parties via email on the same day it was passed, i.e., December 29, 2024.

“The mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that the wrong file was inadvertently uploaded and the defects remained uncured despite the Registry’s observations due to DIAC’s failure to provide copies of the arbitral records cannot be accepted. The first/initial filing was therefore non est, implying that it cannot be considered as filing in any sense”, the Bench noted.

"The initial filing being non est, the limitation time does not stop and the date of filing must be reckoned from the date of refiling, i.e., 29.06.2024, which is beyond the prescribed period of 3 months and 30 days. It would also be pertinent to mention that even otherwise, the application under Section 151 of CPC seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition lacks sufficient reasoning", the Bench held while dismissing the Petition along with the pending applications.

Cause Title: Sudesh Hans v. Gian Chand Hans and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1426)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Jinendra Jain, Harshit, Krishna,Bijay, Manoj Gautam and Manoj

Respondents: Advocates Sangeeta Sondhi & Daksh Jain

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.