BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 seeking dismissal of the Transfer Petition No. 15/2006 on two counts. It is firstly contended that the petition has been wrongly styled as a Transfer Petition and should have been numbered as an Original Miscellaneous Petition (OMP) inasmuch as it has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") challenging the Award dated 10. 11. 2004 made by Mr T. S. Bhatija, sole arbitrator. It has been contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that while the Registry of this Court was of the view that the petition cannot be numbered as a transfer Petition, the petitioner insisted that the same should be numbered as such. According to the respondent No. 1 the object of this was to get over the question of limitation. This leads to the second ground taken by the respondent No. 1 and that is that the petition is, on the statements as made in the petition itself, barred by limitation.

( 2 ) AT this stage it may be pointed out that the question of nomenclature of the petition is not really relevant as that can be easily corrected. The main issue is whether the petition, which is admittedly one under Section 34 of the said Act challenging the Award dated 10. 11. 2004, is within time or not? the brief facts are that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 (M/s. Shree ram Construction Co.) entered into an agreement on 31. 05. 1999 for the construction of a single lane RCC bridge at RD-160m, across the supplementary drain. The contract value was of Rs 2,96,943/ -. The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Disputes and differences had arisen between the parties. Since no arbitrator was being appointed, an arbitration application No. 229/2002 was filed before this Court by the respondent No. l under Section 11 (6) of the said Act seeking appointment of an independent and impartial sole arbitrator. By an order dated 22. 09. 2003 the respondent No. 2 was appointed as the sole arbitrator. The claims submitted by the respondent No. 1 exceeded Rs 50 lacs, which according to the respondent No. 1, fell within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court. The sole arbitrator proceeded with the arbitration and made and published his Award on 10. 11. 2004. The sole arbitrator awarded a sum of rs 5,37,160/- in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum till full and final payment by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner received the Award on 17. 11. 2004. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the said award, on 25. 01. 2005 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 34 of the said Act challenging the said Award. However, the petitioner, instead of filing that petition before this Court, filed it before the District Court, Delhi (numbered as suit No. 19/2005 ). Objections were raised by the respondent no. 1 with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court. On 14. 08. 2006 a statement was made by Mr Sanjay Dewan, the Advocate for the petitioner, before the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in the said suit no. 19/2005. The statement was to the effect that he had instructions to state that the petitioner had no objection for allowing the application of the respondent under Section 42 of the said Act for return of the present objection under Section 34 of the said Act for refiling in the High Court of delhi which is the competent court of jurisdiction as the arbitrator in the present case was appointed by an order of the High Court of Delhi in petition no. 229/2002 vide order dated 22. 09. 2003. On the basis of this statement, the learned Additional District Judge passed the following order on 14. 08. 2006 itself:-

"statement of Sh. Sanjay Dewan, Advocate for petitioner recorded by which petitioner wants to withdraw the present petition for filing the same in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The praye

Click Here to Read the rest of this document