The Delhi High Court has held that the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the initial filing of a petition and not to its re-filing, while allowing applications seeking condonation of delay in three connected petitions challenging arbitral awards against the Food Corporation of India (FCI).
Justice Om Prakash Shukla was dealing with petitions filed by PSA Protech and Infralogistics Pvt. Ltd., Alompcm Infrastructural and Logistics Pvt. Ltd. and Macheda Logistics Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners sought condonation of 2 days’ delay in filing and 113 days’ delay in re-filing. They submitted that the petitions had been substantially filed within the statutory period and the defects pointed out by the Registry were procedural and curable.
FCI opposed the applications, arguing that the petitions were effectively perfected only on July 25, 2025, beyond the outer statutory period, and that the initial filings were “non-est”.
The High Court rejected the objection, holding that the initial filing was not non-est, as the defects were largely procedural and curable. The court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Northern Railway v. Pioneer Publicity Corporation Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 11 SCC 234 which held that the Court noted that Section 34(3) governs the initial filing, while delay in re-filing may be condoned where sufficient cause and diligence are shown.
The applications were accordingly allowed. The parties were directed to complete pleadings within four weeks, and the connected petitions were listed for final hearing on October 14, 2026.
