( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed under Section 37 (l) (b) of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant-Company which is a public sector undertaking of the Government of Karnataka had invited tenders by way of public notification for mining and transporting of ore from Ajjanahalli Mine to Ingaldal The respondent's tender was accepted The respondent was directed to commence the work from 26-5-1999. An agreement was entered into between the parties. Under the agreement the parties agreed to refer all disputes between them to arbitration and further agreed that the Court at Bangalore will have jurisdiction As agreed when dispute arose between them it was referred to a sole Arbitrator under the terms of the agreement An award was passed by the Arbitrator against the appellant on 15-3-2002 The appellant challenged the said award under Section 34 of the Act before the Civil Judge (SD), Chitradurga by filing a petition under Section 34 on 6-6-2002 that is within 90 days of the award

( 3 ) UNDER Section 2 (l) (e) of the Act the jurisdictional Civil Court is the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a District which means the District Court situated therein. According to the appellant because under the old Act of 1940 the Civil Court is the Court having jurisdiction in the subject-matter of reference and considering the same the award was challenged before the Civil Judge (SD), Chitradurga It is submitted that because of some other arbitration petitions were also pending before the Civil Judge (SD), Chitradurga, the appellant filed the petition there

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the appellant that after coming to know that the appropnate Court to file the petition to challenge the award was the District Court, Chitradurga, the appellant filed an application under Order 7, Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of the petition papers so as to present the same before the Hon'ble District Judge, chitradurga That the Civil Judge (SD), Chitradurga by an order dated 29-10-2002 directed return of the papers for presenting the same before the Distnct Judge, Chitradurga and directed the parties to appear before the Distnct Judge on 21-11-2002 It is the further case of the appellant that on 21 11-2002 the respondent filed a preliminary objection raising objection to the jurisdiction of the District Judge, chitradurga to entertain the petition The Distnct Judge, Chitradurga by an order dated 3-2-2003 held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and accordingly returned the petition and the appellant thereafter presented the petition before the 6th Additional City Civil judge, Bangalore on 18-2-2003 Along with the appeal the appellant filed application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of the Limitation act read with Section 43 of the Act praying to exclude the time taken by the appellant for prosecuting the proceedings bona fide before the two lower Courts which had no jurisdiction The City Civil Court, Bangalore after heanng the parties has dismissed the petition as barred by time It is now contended on behalf of the appellant that the lower Court has misconstrued the scope of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by holding that the same will not be applicable to a proceeding under section 34 of the Act Further it is contended that the lower Court was wrong in holding that to condone the delay in any suit or proceeding before the Civil Court the application has to be filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and not under Section 14 It was further submitted that the lower Court has not kept in mind the fact that the application filed was only refiled and not a fresh filing and in such case Section 14 of the Limitation Act will be applicable It was also contended that Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act does not exclude the applicability of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act It was submitted that