The court emphasized the strict adherence to the time limits prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that the delay of more than 30 days could not be condoned under Section 34(3) of the said Act.

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

1. By this notice of motion, the applicants seek condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the present arbitration petition.

2. Mr. Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petition is not filed within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the signed award by the applicants from the learned arbitrator. He submits that delay is not of 24 days but much more than 30 days and thus this Court has no power to condone the delay of more than 30 days.

3. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the papers in the arbitral proceedings were not served upon the applicants. He submits that the copy of the impugned award was received by the applicants in the first week of December 2014. He submits that the applicants, thereafter, made an application on 20th January 2015 through their advocate to the learned arbitrator requesting the learned arbitrator to set aside the impugned award by correcting various mistakes. He submits that the said application made by the applicants was actually filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the said Act”). He submits that the said application, however, is not decided by the learned arbitrator.

4. It is the case of the applicants that some time in the month of June 2015, the applicants were served with the Chamber Summons No. 788 of 2015 in Execution Application (L) No. 1124 of 2015 filed by the respondent, inter alia, praying for the execution of the impugned award dated 11th November 2014. The applicants, thereafter, were advised to challenge the impugned award and not to wait for the outcome of the application purportedly under Section 33 of the said Act. He submits that the petition is admittedly lodged on 22nd September 2015 and thus there is a delay of 24 days in filing the present arbitration petition. He submits that the applicants were under a genuine and bona-fide belief that the learned arbitrator would decide the said application under Section 33 of the said Act filed by the applicants. Since such application was pending, the applicants did not file an arbitration petition immediately.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that though the applicants have made the payment of Rs. 60,000/- the learned arbitrator did not give credit of the said amount.

6. My attention is also invited to the application dated 20th January 2015 filed by the applicants before the learned arbitrator. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that as the learned arbitrator did not give credit of the amount paid by the applicants, the said application filed by the applicants would fall under Section 33(1)(a) of the said Act. He submits that he has no objection if the matter is remanded back to the learned arbitrator and fair opportunity is given to the applicants to present their case before the learned arbitrator.

7. Mr. Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes this notice of motion on the ground that the petition is filed beyond the period of 30 days after expiry of three months prescribed under Section 34(3) of the said Act and thus this Court has no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days.

8. It is not in dispute that even according to the applicants, copy of the signed award was received by the applicants from the learned arbitrator in the first week of December 2014. The application filed by the applicants purportedly under Section 33 of the said Act is dated 20th January 2015. Even if such application is considered as an application under Section 33 of the said Act, admittedly, the said application is made beyond the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the signed award by the applicants from the learned arbitrator.

9. Under Section 33(1) of the said Act, an application can be made by a party with notice to the other party to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors