The Delhi High Court in the case Viceroy Engineering v. Smith’s Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd observed and has held that the technical deficiencies, which includes pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The bench headed by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri in the case observed and has held that every objection in the filing would not render a petition non-est and it is only the defects that goes to the root of the matter that would make of the filing non-est. Facts of the Case:The petitioner in the plea contested an Arbitral Award which is issued on March 15, 2019 and has filed the petition on July 10, 2019.Thus, the initial filing on 29.06.2019 faced issues as it was deemed non est due to procedural errors and instead of following the appropriate format, a company petition was erroneously filed,rendering the first attempt ineffective. The petitioner on July 10, 2019 filed the petition, encountering objections from the Registry, including pagination concerns, jurisdictional matters, and the attestation of affidavits. Thus, the petitioner in the plea diligently addressed these objections during subsequent clearance attempts on July 30, 2019, August 01, 2019, and August 02, 2019.Submissions Made By The Parties It has been contended by the respondent before the court that the filing on 10.07.2019 was time-barred, non est, and that the defects were non-curable. The petitioner in the plea asserted that the defects were procedural and curable, promptly addressing the objections raised by the Registry. Therefore, the Registry objections encompassed issues such as incomplete pagination, concerns about pecuniary jurisdiction, and the attestation of affidavits. On the other hand, it has been argued by the respondent that the objections, if not rectified within seven days, should result in the petitioner being non-suited. Analysis Made By The Court The Court after examining the objections raised by the Registry, which includes pagination, underlining, and jurisdictional concerns. Thus, unlike the objections that that render a filing non est, such as lacking essential signatures or approvals, the court observed that the defacts were procedural in nature. The said court also distinguished between the defects that strike at the root of the filing’s validity and those that are being curable through rectification. The court in the case referred to prior cases to underscore the importance of meeting the basic requirements for an application as stated under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The registry objections were deemed procedural and curable, and the non-removal within seven days did not render the subsequent re-filing as non-est. The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has exercised its discretion as stated under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, while considering the petitioner’s satisfactory explanation. Thus, the factors contributing to the delay included procedural objections and the closure of the Registry during summer vacations, which provides a reasonable basis for the Court to condone the delay.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Percival Billimoria, Senior Advocate with Mr Shekhar Kumar, Mr Gandharav Anand, Ms Jasmine Damkewala, Mr Aditya Raj, Ms. Rachita Sood, Mr. Divyam Khera, Mr Divyam Khera, Mr Advait Joshi and Ms. Nishtha Tyagi appeared for the Petitioner. The counsel, Advocates Ms. Payal Chawla, Ms. Latika Arora represented the respondent.