ORDER :

1. These four writ petitions arise from a common award between the same parties and the dispute involved in all these writ petitions are identical, and therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, all the petitions are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions are, the petitioner herein was awarded four different contracts pursuant to the tender notification published by respondent no. 1 and agreements were also executed by respondent no. 1 in favour of the petitioner for the project “Improvements to Basavakalyan - Raichur Road” from KM 67 to 99.80 in Chittapur of Gulbarga District. Since there were certain disputes between the parties arising out of the contract, petitioner had approached this Court in CMP Nos. 20005-20009/2014 which was disposed of by this Court on 19.01.2015 appointing respondent no. 2 as the Sole Arbitrator.

3. The learned Arbitrator had thereafter entered appearance and pursuant to the notices issued by him, parties have filed claim petition, statement of objections and also counter claim. The learned Arbitrator partly allowed the claim petition vide his common award dated 30.10.2018 and as against the said common award, respondent no. 1 herein had filed four separate arbitration suits before the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commercial Court’) under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’). Along with the suit, respondent no. 1 had also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, if any, caused in filing the arbitration suit.

4. The learned Judge of the Commercial Court vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2020 has allowed the said applications and the delay caused in filing the arbitration suit was condoned. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the arbitration suits under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were filed by respondent no. 1 before the Commercial Court beyond the period of limitation and the Commercial Court has got jurisdiction to condone the delay only as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996. He submits that the arbitration suit is required to be filed within three months from the date the applicant has received the copy of the award and the Commercial Court can condone a maximum of 30 days delay thereafter, and if the delay is more than that, the same cannot be condoned. He submits that in the case on hand, the delay is much more than 30 days after expiry of three months period and therefore, the Commercial Court could not have condoned the same.

6. He submits that the application for correction of award is required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of award as provided under Section 33 of the Act of 1996. In the case on hand, the award is passed on 30.10.2018 and the application is filed on 06.02.2019 which is much beyond the period provided under Section 33 of the Act of 1996. He submits that the learned arbitrator has no power to consider the application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 if the same is filed after expiry of thirty days and therefore the order passed by him is a nullity and nonest in the eye of law. He submits that since the order under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 is passed without jurisdiction the limitation for filing application under Section 34(1) of the Act of 1996 commences from the date of receipt of award by applicant and not from the date the learned arbitrator has disposed of Section 33 application. He submits that no application was filed under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 but only a request letter was issued by respondent No. 1. He submits that the petitioner was not heard by the learned Arbitrator before the award was co