IMPORTANT POINT
The Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay in filing Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and highlighted the inflexibility of the limitation period.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The present Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37(1) (B) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act, 1996') has been filed to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2023 dismissing the Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by the learned Single Judge on the ground of limitation.

2. The respondent was awarded the work for `construction of printing press hall, training centre and other allied works in connection with modernization of printing press at Shakurbasti, New Delhi' pursuant to a tender bearing No. 1-Aces/Tender/SSB/65 dated 4th April 2011 floated by the petitioner/appellant. Disputes arose between the parties and the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. The learned Arbitrators were appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties on 26.05.2014. The parties initiated the adjudication process and statement of facts was filed on 30.10.2014. The impugned Award was passed on 24.02.2018.

3. Aggrieved by the Award, the appellant approached Tis Hazari Courts and filed its Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on 30.05.2018. An Objection was taken by the respondent that the value of the petition was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned District and Sessions Judge. Consequently, in view of the objection taken, the appellant withdrew his petition so filed.

4. Thereafter, the Objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed before the learned Single Judge who considered the preliminary objection of the respondent that the Objections were barred by limitation and observed that the Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 were filed beyond the period of 120 days as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996. The delay in filing the objections was of 12 months for which there was no explanation and was explicitly in contravention of the mandate of Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996. Thus, the objections were dismissed as barred by limitation.

5. Being aggrieved, the present Appeal has been preferred.

6. Submissions heard.

7. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has contended that the impugned Order suffers from patent illegality and is against the law as the period for which the Objections were pending before the Court not having jurisdiction, has not been excluded in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

8. The only moot aspect for determination is whether there is any patent illegality in dismissal of Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the ground of barred by limitation.

9. In order to appreciate the merits of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is pertinent to refer to Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996 which provides for period of filing of the Objections and reads as under:

"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -

...

(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter....".

10. According to Section 34 of the Act, 1996, the aggrieved party has a period of three months as a matter of right for filing the Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. However, the Proviso to Section 34(3) gives a further window of 30 days which can be condoned if the court is satisfied with the reasons for delay.

11. The appellant has claimed that its Objections were well within the time and has explained the same in the following manner: