The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India (UOI) against M/s GR-Gawar (J.V.), calling its arbitration challenge "non-existent in law." The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, on October 30, 2025, upheld a Single Judge's order that had rejected the government’s Section 34 petition as hopelessly time-barred.
Background
The dispute stems from a road upgradation project in Nepal’s Terai region, awarded by the Ministry of External Affairs to GR-Gawar (a joint venture). After disagreements over payments and delays, the matter was first taken to a Dispute Review Expert, then to an Arbitral Tribunal, which passed an award on January 3, 2024, later corrected on March 2, 2024.
Dissatisfied, the Union of India tried to challenge the award before the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the petition, first filed on June 20, 2024, was riddled with defects — missing the arbitral award itself, unsigned pleadings, unpaid court fees, and incomplete documentation.
Although the ministry refiled the petition months later in January 2025, the court held that the "so-called filing" had been nothing but an attempt to stop the limitation clock.
Court’s Observations
The Bench noted that the government’s conduct showed "gross negligence," adding that the delay applications filed offered no reasonable justification.
"The Court cannot treat such an incomplete, unsigned and deficient petition as a valid filing," the judges said, emphasizing that the absence of the arbitral award rendered the entire filing "non est" — meaning it had no existence in law.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Upholds DGGI’s Power to Attach Bank Accounts Under Section 83 of the CGST Act
Referring to a recent Full Bench decision in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Del 636), the Bench reiterated that filing the arbitral award is not a mere formality but a mandatory precondition to invoke judicial review under Section 34.
Quoting from that ruling, the Court said: "Non-filing of the arbitral award would make the application ‘non est’ in the eyes of law, thereby not stopping the period of limitation from running."
The judges also took a critical view of the government’s explanation for the delay - that "the record was voluminous" - calling it wholly unsatisfactory. "We are distressed by the approach adopted by the Appellant, namely, the Government of India, in handling this matter," the Court observed, noting that public money and accountability were at stake.
Legal Principle Reaffirmed
Citing earlier Supreme Court rulings (Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co.), the Bench underscored that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act provides a strict 120-day limit for challenging arbitral awards. No court, it said, has discretion to condone a delay beyond that.
The judges clarified that while courts may take a liberal view in curing minor procedural defects, "where the defects cumulatively show that the filing was done only to arrest limitation without intent to prosecute the matter diligently, the filing is rightly treated as non est."
Concluding that the Union of India’s original filing was "merely a perfunctory exercise" and that even the refiling had come seven months too late, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
"The initial filing was, at best, a half-hearted and belated attempt to pre-empt the passage of time, rather than a bona fide invocation of Section 34," the judgment said.
The Court also directed the Registry to ensure strict compliance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, regarding defective filings — a clear signal that casual filings by litigants, including government agencies, will no longer pass muster.
The appeal and all pending applications were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: Union of India vs M/s GR-Gawar (J.V.)
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 107/2025
