Condonation of delay in re-presenting objections depends on curable defects, lack of negligence, and proper treatment of limitation.

The Supreme Court considered whether delay in re-presenting objections to an arbitral award after removal of defects should be condoned, and whether the original defective filing could be treated as valid for limitation. It held that the objections were filed within time and were returned only for curable defects: improper court fee and absence of the date of verification. The delay in re-presentation was attributable to the appellant's inability to recover papers from its former advocate, and the appellant was not negligent. The Court treated the court-fee deficiency as curable under Section 149 CPC and held that the verification omission was not material. It also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was wrongly applied because the issue was re-presentation, not belated initial filing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in refiling the objections to the arbitral award after removal of defects should be condoned, and whether the defective initial filing could be treated as a valid presentation for the purpose of limitation.

Analysis: The objections had been presented within the prescribed period, but were returned for two curable defects, namely non-affixation of proper court fee and omission of the date of verification. The delay in re-presentation was found to have occurred because the appellant was unable to retrieve the papers from its erstwhile advocate, whose conduct was found to be wholly unsatisfactory. The Court held that the appellant was not negligent and that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control. It further held that the deficiency in court fee attracted the power under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the omission in the verification was not a material defect. The Court also held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was misapplied because the matter concerned re-presentation of a defective petition rather than belated initial filing.

Conclusion: The delay was liable to be condoned, and the objections could not be rejected as time-barred on the facts of the case.

---