Re-filing delay in Section 34 objections can be condoned when Section 34(3) does not govern cured defects.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the original filing of an application to set aside an arbitral award, not to re-filing after objections are returned for defects. The Court accepted that the delay in re-filing could be condoned on sufficient cause, particularly where extensions had already been granted and the explanation was acceptable in the circumstances. The Delhi High Court Rules did not operate to defeat the objections on the facts. The objections under Section 34 were directed to be taken on file and decided according to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in re-filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be condoned and whether Section 34(3) barred such re-filing.

Analysis: Section 34(3) governs the initial filing of an application to set aside an arbitral award and does not apply to re-filing after objections have been returned for removal of defects. The record showed that extensions had been granted for re-filing, and the explanation offered for the delay was accepted in the overall circumstances. The contention based on Rule 5(3) of the Delhi High Court Rules was not accepted so as to defeat the objections on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The delay in re-filing was not treated as fatal, and the objections under Section 34 were directed to be taken on the file and decided according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies to the original filing of a setting-aside application and not to re-filing after defects are cured; a re-filing delay may be condoned on sufficient cause in the circumstances of the case.

---