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 31-10-2001. The appellants challenged the Award by filing petition on 20-12-2001 within the period prescribed under section 34 of the 1996 Act before the High Court at Delhi. An application was moved for seeking correction to the Award before the learned Arbitrators. The Award came to be corrected by order dated 22-12-2001. Another application was made for correction of the Award which was allowed by order dated 29-12-2001. The respondents herein raised objection before the Delhi High Court that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it was not the Court within the meaning of section 2(e) of the 1996 Act. On hearing parties, order came to be passed on 18-4-2002 holding that the Delhi High Court would have no jurisdiction and pursuant to that returned the papers to the appellants to present the proceedings before the competent forum. The papers were returned to the appellants on 18-5-2002. After the papers were returned, the petition was presented before this Court on 22-8-2002. A notice of motion for condonation of delay has been filed on 18-12-2002. In so far as applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Rebello, J., held that the decision of the Supreme Court in (Union of India v. Popular Construction Company)1, 2002(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)123 is confined to section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned Judge further held that the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not excluded while considering provisions in so far as excluding time in presenting the petition which was filed in time or within the period provided by the Court. The learned Judge further held that the judgment of Justice Srikrishna, as he then was, in the case of (Pushpa P. Mulchandani and others v. Admiral Radhakrishin Tahiliani (Retd.) and others)2, 2001(1) Bom.C.R. (O.O.C.J.)592 holding that the provisions 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the petition under section 34 is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Popular Construction Company (supra) where the Supreme Court specifically held that because of the express language, provisions of section 5 are not applicable. The learned Judge, however, held that even if the period of 20-12-2001 to 18-5-2002 is excluded the petition as filed before this Court was not within the period of limitation as the appellants had not amended the petition by challenging the Award as amended on 22-12-2001 and 29-12-2001, therefore the period of limitation must be deemed to have commenced on the date of the Award was amended and the copy was served. Consequently the notice of motion and the petition came to be dismissed.

4. The main issue that falls for consideration is whether considering the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document