JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. The instant application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the petitioners, State of West Bengal through the Secretary, Public Works Department, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘award debtor’) arises out of an arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 passed by Shri Bibek Raha, Sole Arbitrator. The respondent in the instant application is Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘award holder’).

2. The award holder has raised a challenge on the grounds of maintainability wherein it has argued that the instant application has been filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under the Act. The said challenge was vehemently opposed by the petitioners, and hence, in this judgment, I have only dealt with the point of maintainability of the Section 34 application.

Facts

3. I have mapped out the factual matrix of the instant lis below:

(a) In 1996, the award debtor invited tenders for “Construction of Prestressed Concrete Bridge on Well Foundation over River Tangon at 16 K.M. Gazole-Bamangola Road in the District of Malda.” The award holder submitted its tender on January 29, 1996 wherein the letter of intent was issued on October 9, 1996 and the work order was issued on November 12, 1996 by the award debtor. The project was completed by the award holder on January 5, 2006.

(b) On September 11, 2009, the award holder sent a letter to the award debtor raising several claims. By another letter dated October 15, 2009, the award holder invoked the arbitration clause. In terms of the arbitration clause incorporated in the tender conditions, arbitration was first referred to Shri Santanu Basu Rai Choudhury, Chief Engineer, Public Works (Roads) Department. Being unable to undertake the reference himself, Shri Santanu Basu Rai Choudhury appointed Shri Bibek Raha as the Sole Arbitrator. The said arbitrator entered reference on November 19, 2009.

(c) An award was passed on June 30, 2022 directing the award debtor to pay a sum of INR 2,11,67,054.00 (Two Crores Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Fifty Four Rupees Only) including INR 5 Lakhs costs along with interest at 15% per annum after expiry of 90 days from the date of award till the date of payment. The copy of the arbitral award was received by the parties on June 30, 2022 itself.

(d) On October 31, 2022, the award debtor filed the instant application praying for setting aside of the said arbitral award.

Contentions

4. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the award debtor has made following submissions on the point of maintainability:

(a) The learned Advocate General relied upon Sections 3(35) and 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to submit that the prescribed period of limitation that is three months from the date of receipt of the arbitral award started on July 01, 2022. The learned Advocate General contended that the said period would expire on the corresponding date after three calendar months, that is, on October 01, 2022 which happened to be the first day of the Puja Vacations.

(b) He argued that as the last day of filing the instant application fell on October 01, 2022 that is the day the Court was closed, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, must be extended to the award debtor. Consequently, the three months period expired on October 31, 2022 that is the day this Court reopened after the Puja Vacations. The learned Advocate General contended that as the instant application was filed on October 31, 2022, the same falls within the prescribed period that is three months as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act.

(c) Not forgoing the above, the learned Advocate General proceeded to further argue that proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act shall become completely otiose if the Court holds that the prescribed period for filing the instant Section 34 challenge expir