JUDGMENT

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. - A preliminary point has been raised by the respondent in the present challenge to an Award under section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondent contends that the application for setting aside of the Award filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation and should, therefore, be dismissed.

2. Mr. Joy Saha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, places the relevant dates for the question of maintainability and urges that the petitioner has not taken any steps in having the initial delay in filing of the Award, condoned. Counsel relies on Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 and Simplex Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 455 for the proposition that section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 would not apply to section 34 of the 1996 Act. Counsel cites Maqbul Ahmed & Ors. vs. Pratap Narain Singh & Ors., (1935) AIR PC 85 and Sri Amar Chand Inani Vs. Union of India, (1973) 1 SCC 115 for the proposition that when a plaint is filed in a wrong court, the time consumed between passing of the order returning the plaint and re-filing of the plaint cannot be excluded. Two recent