JUDGMENT :

1. This is an application made on behalf of an award-debtor for dismissal of the execution application filed by the award-holder under Section 36 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act). The Award, which forms the subject-matter of the execution application, is dated 31st August, 2020. By the said Award, the award-debtor was directed to pay a substantial sum of money to the award-holder.

2. The point as argued by learned counsel appearing for the parties on the maintainability of the application is being addressed in this order since that would have a bearing on the execution proceedings as well. The argument on the maintainability, urged on behalf of the applicant/judgment-debtor consists of two points: first that the time to execute the Award has not commenced and second, that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the execution proceedings since the award-debtor is based in Chennai and the assets are located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. The second point is not being gone into since the first point with regard to the time from which the execution could have commenced is sufficient in deciding the maintainability of the execution proceedings.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant relies on the orders passed by the Supreme Court by which periods of limitation under the general and special laws were extended in view of the pandemic. According to counsel, since the periods of limitation have been thus extended by the Supreme Court, the time to file an application for setting aside of the Award has not ended.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the award-holder submits that the provisions of the Act make it clear that stay of an Award is no longer automatic and that the award-debtor has to make a separate application for grant of stay which would be clear from the amendment brought into effect from 2015. It is submitted that the time to file for setting aside of the Award has admittedly expired and the award-debtor has also not applied for stay of the Award. Counsel places the mandatory period within which the award-debtor must apply for setting aside of the award and further submits that the award-debtor owes a sum of Rs.26 crores to the award-holder.

5. Upon considering the submissions of Counsel, this Court is of the view that the intention of the Supreme Court would be clear from the operative portions of at least three of the orders namely, 23rd March, 2020, 8th March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 passed in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3/2020. By the first order dated 23rd March, 2020, the period of limitation for filing proceedings under the general and special Laws was extended with effect from 15th March, 2020 for alleviating the difficulties faced by litigants in the Covid19 pandemic. By the 8th March, 2021 order the extension of limitation was regulated and somewhat curtailed by the Supreme Court in view of the improvement in the situation and lifting of the nationwide lockdown. By the order dated 27th April, 2021, passed in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu (C) No.3 of 2020 which is the last order in the series, the Supreme Court noting the steep rise in COVID cases in the second wave of the pandemic thought it fit to restore the first order of 23rd March, 2020. In essence, the benefit of the extension of the period of limitation given to litigants was revived and restored by the order dated 27th April, 2021. The Miscellaneous Application is due to be listed on 19th July, 2021.

6. The relevant paragraphs from the order dated 27th April, 2021 that is relevant in this context are set out:-

“6. We also take judicial notice of the fact that the steep rise in covid-19 virus cases is not limited to Delhi alone but it has engulfed the entire nation. The extraordinary situation caused by the sudden and second outburst of covid-19 virus, thus, requires extraordinary measures to minimize the hardship of the litigant-public in all the States. We, therefore