JUDGMENT - SHAH A.P., J.:---Admit. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties appeals are taken up for final hearing. Cross objections filed by the respondents are taken on record.

2. Appeal No. 556 of 2003 is directed against the order of Rebello, J., dismissing the notice of motion seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as the "1996 Act", which was earlier filed before the Delhi High Court and which was returned to the appellants herein for filing before the appropriate Court. The appellants wanted that period to be excluded for computing the period of limitation under section 34 of the Act of 1996 by recourse to section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As they delay has not been condoned, the petition under section 34 came to be dismissed. Appeal No. 555 of 2003 is preferred against the dismissal of the petition. The principal question which falls for our determination is whether the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to an application challenging an Award under section 34 of the 1996 Act.

3. The Award in this case came to be passed on 31-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document