S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In this proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act), the petitioner challenges the validity of the award of a sole arbitrator, made on 18.01.2005. The respondent, at the threshold objects to maintainability of the proceedings on the ground that the petition under Section 34 of the Act, was filed beyond time prescribed by law.

2. To better appreciate the controversy the following essential facts are narrated. The award was announced on 18th January, 2005. The arbitrator at that stage communicated copies of the award to the parties. He however, recorded that the original award was not being communicated since it had to bear the prescribed stamp duty. The claimant (i.e. the petitioner here) was directed to ascertain the required amount and send the stamp papers to enable the arbitrator to have the award imprinted on it. On 12.02.2005, the petitioner moved the arbitrator for clarification, correction and interpretation of the award under Section 33(1) of the Act. Among several contentions, it was urged that the arbitrator, in his award committed an error in over-looking that the claim,