JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

I.A. 1776/2022 (under Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC, by Petitioners)

1. This judgment will dispose of an application filed by the Petitioners under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the `1963 Act') read with Section 151 CPC seeking exclusion of 1239 days spent in prosecuting the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `1996 Act'), being ARBTN. No.5043/2018 before the learned District Judge, Commercial Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and Appeal against the said order in this Court being FAO(COMM.) No.200/2021.

2. Present petition has been filed by the Petitioners assailing an award dated 08.06.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in reference No.8N/CHD/(6)/17/LS 6508 in respect of contract order dated 05.06.2013 placed on the Respondent by the Petitioners pursuant to a tender for construction of a Seed Store of 35,000 quintals capacity including construction of boundary walls, roads, electrical works etc.

3. By the impugned award, the learned sole Arbitrator has allowed wholly or in part, claim Nos.1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Respondent and aggrieved by the award, Petitioners challenged the same by filing a petition being ARBTN. No.5043/2018 under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the District Judge. This petition was admittedly filed within the statutory time limit of three months prescribed under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act. However, almost three years later i.e. on 25.09.2021, petition was dismissed as non-maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction since the Statement of Claim demonstrated that claims of the Respondent were more than Rs.2 Crores.

4. This decision was challenged by Petitioners by filing an appeal before this Court bearing FAO(COMM.) No.200/2021 under Section 37(1)(b) of the 1996 Act. Vide order dated 14.12.2021, this Court dismissed the appeal finding no infirmity in the impugned order. However, the Court held that the dismissal shall not in any manner preclude the Petitioners from instituting a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, in accordance with law, before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the liberty granted by this Court, Petitioners filed the present petition on 31.01.2022.

5. By an order dated 02.02.2022, this Court stayed the execution of the award, subject to the Petitioners depositing the awarded amount and notice was issued in the present application. The application was heard at some length on 03.03.2023 and during the course of arguments, learned counsel for Petitioners sought and was granted two weeks' time to file detailed affidavit in support of the application. Affidavit was filed on behalf of the Petitioners on 17.04.2023 alongwith orders passed by the District Judge as well as this Court in FAO (COMM.) No.200/2021. Respondent has filed a detailed reply to this application.

6. Contentions on behalf of the Petitioners are as under:

(a) After the award was passed and received by the Petitioners on 08.06.2018, Petitioners filed a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act on 06.09.2018 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, challenging the award within the statutory period of limitation of three months. Respondent also filed a petition being ARBTN. No.5676/2018 on 03.10.2018 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts partially challenging the same award. Petition was filed by the Petitioners under a bonafide belief that under provision of Section 12(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the interest claimed by the Respondent was not to be included in the aggregate value of the claims. By this assessment, the total value of the claims came to Rs.1,92,49,235/-, excluding future and pendente lite interest and therefore, in the understanding of the Petitioners, the District Court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

(b) Petition w