Union of India and Anr. Vs Ms Garg and Garg Company

¶1

The Union of India and another Vs. M/s Garg and Garg Company

¶2

CARAP(M) No.11 of 2025

¶3

01.12.2025 Present: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Srishti Chauhan, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶5

CARAP(M) No.11 of 2025

¶6

By way of this application, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of delay in filing certified copy of the Award and for the declaration that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been filed within limitation.

¶7

Facts necessary for the adjudication of this application are that feeling aggrieved by an Award passed by learned Arbitrator, dated 02.04.2025, the petitioners filed a petition before this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 30.06.2025. The petition was not accompanied by a signed copy of the Award, though it is not in dispute that the signed copy of the Award was made available by the learned Arbitrator to the parties on the date of announcement of the award. It appears that thereafter, on the advice of the learned Counsel representing the petitioners, the certified copy of the Award was placed on record, but as there was a delay of 22 days as after three months from the passing of the Award, this application has been filed.

¶8

Learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant has objected to the application on the ground that the applicants/petitioners herein are the Union of India and a plea from the Union of India that the petitioners were not aware that a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has to be accompanied by a signed copy of the Award is simply not acceptable. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is settled law that ignorance of law is no excuse and herein, as the Union of India preferred the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without the petition being accompanied by a signed copy of the Award, the same is no petition in the eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Supplementary Affidavit filed by the petitioners to explain the delay does not spell out any reason because perusal thereof demonstrates that even after the signed copy of the Award was received in the Office of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India on 04.07.2025, it was filed after about 20 days without there being any explanation as to why the needful could not be done earlier. Accordingly, on these counts be submitted that as there is no cogent explanation that has come-forth from the applicants as to why the delay of 22 days beyond three months should be condoned, the present prayer of the petitioners deserves to be rejected.

¶9

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that earlier the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was bonafidely filed alongwith a photocopy of the Award under

¶10

the belief that the same suffices the purpose. He submitted that thereafter, it was on the advice of the Counsel that the signed copy was made available which was received on 04.07.2025, but the same was not filed as the Office of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India was of the view that as there were certain objections raised in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, it would be prudent to remove all the objections simultaneously and also file the signed copy of the Award alongwith the removal of the objections. He submitted that, therefore, as the delay is bonafide and cogent reasons stand spelled out and further, as the petition otherwise has been filed even as from the date of placing on record the signed copies within a period of 30 days as after the expiry of three months from the date of filing of the same, it would be in the interest of justice in case the application is allowed, as prayed for.

¶11

I have heard learned Central Government Counsel for the applicants as well as learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant and have also carefully gone through the application as well as reply filed thereto as also affidavits and counters filed thereto.

¶12

Though, this Court concurs with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant that it is not expected from the Union of India that it will file a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without the same being accompanied by a signed copy of the Award, but it appears that once the petition was received

¶13

alongwith a photocopy to avoid the expiry of limitation, the petition was filed alongwith the photocopy of the Award. Thereafter, obviously on the advice of the Office of the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the signed copy was sent to the concerned Office which was received on 04.07.2025. Thereafter, the same was filed on 23.07.2025 and thus there is this delay of 22 days for which the explanation is that as certain objections stood raised in the petition, the Office thought best to remove the objections and file the signed copy also simultaneously and this has led to the delay of 22 days.

¶14

Despite there being a delay of 22 days as from the date of expiry of three months from the passing of the Award, the petition is within the extendable period as is mentioned in the Statute.

¶15

Therefore, in these peculiar circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case the prayer of the applicants is allowed, more so in light of the fact that the Arbitral Award is to the tune of Rs.8 crore against the present applicants.

¶16

Accordingly, the application is allowed, as prayed for and the 22 days delay in filing the petition is condoned and the signed copy thereof is ordered to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- by the applicants to the non-applicant. The costs shall be paid positively on or before 31.12.2025, failing which this order will loose its efficacy. The application stands disposed of.

¶17

CARBCST No.38692 of 2025 CARBC No. of 2025

¶18

List for further consideration on 06.01.2026 .

¶19

Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶20

December 01, 2025 (Rishi)

Union of India and Anr. v. Ms Garg and Garg Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Anr. v. Ms Garg and Garg Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhian Singh and Anr. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Joginder Snigh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of H.P

Raj Kumar Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Raj Kumar Vs Leela Devi

M/s Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited Vs State of Hp and Anr.