Heard Sri P. P. Chaudhary, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri Sudhir Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent.
The present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act') against the order dated 6.11.2020 passed by the Presiding Authority, Commercial Court, Aligarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 50 of 2020 (State of U.P. and others Vs. M/s Ashish Kumar Sharma). That order was passed under Section 34 of the Act on the objections filed by the appellant with reference to the award of the arbitrator dated 18.06.2019 as corrected on 8.7.2019. The objection filed under Section 34 of the Act have been rejected as time barred. Hence this appeal.
Undisputedly, the award of the arbitrator is of date 18.06.2019 and it was corrected on 8.7.2019. It's signed copy is admitted to have been provided to the learned counsel for the appellant on 8.7.2019 itself. Therefore, the normal period of limitation to file objection under Section 34 of the Act being three months ended on 7.10.2019.
By virtue of the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act, further period of thirty days was available to the appellant to file objection (that period also expired on 7.11.2019) after satisfying the learned court below as to the existence of sufficient cause for that delay.
Undisputedly, the objection first came to be filed by the appellant on 20.11.2019 which is wholly beyond the period of three months and thirty days from the delivery of signed copy of award dated 8.7.2019. The period of limitation for filing such objection, is mandatory and rigid. In sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act, its start running from the date of receipt of the arbitral award and ends at the end of three months and thirty days. Any explanation offered for the delay beyond that period, cannot be considered by the courts as that would be plainly outside the jurisdiction vested by the statute. Therefore, the learned court below has not erred in rejecting the delay condonation application on that count. The fact that there was further delay on account of the application having been filed before a wrong court, may not engage the attention of this court as that question does not arise on account of the first application having been itself being filed almost thirteen days after the complete lapse of limitation.
Also in view of the above, further submission being made by the learned counsel for the appellant that this court be not constrained by the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act, is found to be misconceived as the court is only considering the correctness of the order rejecting the delay condonation application and therefore the enquiry before this court is confined to examine the correctness of that order alone. No further power has been vested on the court to either extend the limitation period or to examine the correctness of the award passed in proceeding under Section 34 of the Act. Once the objection was found to have been filed beyond time, therefore, not maintainable, the issue of consideration on merits of the award does not arise.
The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.1.2021 SA