LI Network
Published on: December 10, 2023 at 15:40 IST
The Delhi High Court has clarified that technical deficiencies, such as pagination errors and affidavit attestation issues, do not render petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (A&C Act) invalid.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, presiding over the bench, emphasized that objections in the filing process should not automatically result in deeming a petition non-est. Only defects that go to the fundamental validity of the matter can render a filing non-est.
Background:
The petitioner contested an Arbitral Award issued on 15.03.2019 and initially filed the petition on 29.06.2019. However, due to procedural errors, the initial filing was considered non-est. The petitioner mistakenly filed a company petition instead of following the correct format, rendering the first attempt ineffective.
Subsequently, on 10.07.2019, the petitioner refiled the petition, facing objections from the Registry regarding pagination, jurisdictional matters, and affidavit attestation. The petitioner diligently addressed these objections during subsequent clearance attempts on 30.07.2019, 01.08.2019, and 02.08.2019.
Submissions and Analysis:
The respondent argued that the filing on 10.07.2019 was time-barred, non-est, and that the defects were non-curable. In response, the petitioner contended that the defects were procedural and curable, promptly addressing the objections raised by the Registry.
Registry objections included concerns about incomplete pagination, issues related to pecuniary jurisdiction, and the attestation of affidavits. The respondent argued that if these objections were not rectified within seven days, the petitioner should be considered non-suited.
The Court thoroughly examined the objections raised by the Registry, distinguishing between defects that strike at the root of the filing’s validity and those that are procedural and curable. Unlike objections that make a filing non-est, such as the absence of essential signatures or approvals, the observed deficiencies were deemed procedural and rectifiable.
Emphasizing the intelligibility of the filing, the Court referred to precedent cases to underscore the importance of meeting the basic requirements for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Court concluded that the objections raised by the Registry were procedural and curable, and the non-removal within seven days did not render the subsequent re-filing as non-est.
The Court exercised its discretion liberally under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, taking into account the petitioner’s satisfactory explanation for the delay, which included procedural objections and the closure of the Registry during summer vacations.
Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019
