### Filing an incomplete Arbitral Award without foundational documents renders a Section 34 petition non-est.

The Petitioner (Union of India) challenged an Arbitral Award dated 02.05.2024, as corrected on 12.06.2024, which directed payment of ₹32.76 crores plus interest to the Respondent.

The Petitioner initially filed the Section 34 petition on 24.09.2024, which was beyond the three-month statutory period.

This initial filing consisted of only 263 pages (whereas the Award alone was 256 pages) and lacked a Vakalatnama, court fees, proper signatures, and the complete Award.

Substantial foundational defects were cured only on 18.10.2024.

The Respondent filed I.A. 45918/2024 seeking dismissal of the petition on grounds of limitation, arguing the initial filing was *non est*.

Whether the initial filing dated 24.09.2024 was a valid institution or a *non est* filing in the eyes of law.

Whether the delay in filing the Section 34 petition beyond the prescribed three months and thirty days can be condoned.

The court applied Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates a three-month limitation period for setting aside awards, extendable only by thirty days upon "sufficient cause," but not thereafter.

It relied on *Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.* to affirm that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 34.

Furthermore, the court followed the Full Bench decision in *Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India*, which establishes that an application under Section 34 must meet a "minimum threshold"—including the filing of the impugned award and a signed petition—to be considered a valid filing; absence of these foundational documents renders a filing *non est*.

The court found that the Petitioner’s initial filing on 24.09.2024 was "perfunctory" and "illusory," intended merely to arrest the limitation clock.

Specifically, only 19 pages of the 256-page Award were filed, and the petition lacked essential components like a Vakalatnama and attested affidavits.

Applying the *Pragati Construction* criteria, the court held that such a filing lacks the "jurisdictional substratum" to be recognized in law.

The court rejected the Petitioner’s plea of administrative delays and "confusion" regarding stamp duty as "frivolous," noting that government authorities must adhere to strict statutory timelines.

Since the foundational defects were only cured on 18.10.2024, which was four days beyond the maximum permissible extension (3 months + 30 days), the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the challenge.

Consequently, the Section 34 petition [O.M.P. (COMM) 452/2024] was dismissed as time-barred.

In the Enforcement Petition [OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 208/2025], the court directed the Union of India to deposit the awarded amount within two weeks and listed the matter for further proceedings on 23.03.2026.