ORDER :- By this order I shall dispose of an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the applicant/petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the Petition/objections under Section 34 of the Act beyond 90 days.

2. It is undisputed that under Section 34 of the Act, Objections can be filed by the aggrieved party within 90 days of receipt of award and this period can be extended by the Court on showing reasonable causes, by another period of 30 days and not beyond.

3. It is stated by the applicant that the impugned award was published by the Arbitrator on 16th October, 2006. The Petition under Section 34 of the Act was initially filed in the Court on 12th February, 2007, about 20 days after expiry of 90 days. Registry raised certain objections against the Petition. These objections of the Registry were removed and the Petition under Section 34 of the Act was re-filed on 28th February, 2007.

4. In the instant application, condonation of delay has been sought in respect of 20 days delay beyond the period of 90 days. It is stated that this Court was within its jurisdiction to condone the delay. The condonation of delay is sought on the ground that after the award was published, it was sent to engineer concerned for study, who prepared a detailed claim-wise summary and sent it to the office of Superintending Engineer. Thereafter, it was sent to Arbitration Board of Delhi Development Authority for approval for filing objections. Approval was granted by the Board to challenge the award in respect of few claims viz. 1(e), 1(f), 1(l), 7, 8, and 10 to 13 and the file was sent to the concerned office of the DDA, who received it on 17th January, 2007. Thereafter, the file was sent to Advocate for appointment of an Advocate and entrusted to Penal Lawyer on 19th January, 2007, who prepared objections in consultation with the Department and filed objections. The applicant explained that due to long administrative procedure in the Petitioner Department, the Objections were filed with a delay of 20 days, however, within the period of 30 days after the expiry of 90 days. In reply to the application, it is stated by the respondent that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not maintainable and the delay of more than 30 days after expiry of initial period of 90 days cannot be condoned. This plea must be rejected outrightly because there is no application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the application filed is under Section 34(3) of the Act.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent pleaded that the date of filing of the Petition/objections under Section 34 of the Act must be the date on which it was re-filed after removing all objections. Since, it was re-filed on 28th February, 2007, there was delay of about 11 days even beyond 120 days and this Court had no jurisdiction to condone the delay after 120 days. In the present case, objections were re-filed beyond 120 days i.e. after 132 days and therefore, this application should be dismissed.

6. The issue arises, if the period under which the objections were removed by the applicant should be added to the period of initial filing op the Petition under Section 34 of the Act and should the Petition be considered to have been filed on 12th February, 2007 or 28th February, 2007.

7. In the present case, the objections raised by the Registry were that vakalatnama was not properly signed, the Court fees of Rs. 1,000/- which was to be attached along with Petition/Objections was not attached. The Counsel for Respondent had relied upon State Bank of India v. M/s. Indian Utility Products and Ors. AIR 2001 Delhi 30 wherein this Court observed that by reason of representation of the plaint, after more than a year of the time allowed for rectification of objections, a valuable right under the Law of Limitation had accrued to the Defendants and mere admission of plaint by Registrar of which no notice was given to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document