Claims can still be made post-final bill if made under coercion; the final arbiter's decisions should not contravene public policy.

JUDGMENT :

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the `A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 14.07.2020 (hereafter the `impugned award') passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereafter the `Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The petitioner states that after the impugned award was delivered, the parties filed an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act seeking certain corrections. The Arbitral Tribunal disposed of the said application. Therefore, the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is required to be reckoned from that date.

3. The petitioner states that on 10.12.2020, the petitioner filed its petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the District Court being OMP (COMM) 101/2020 captioned Union of India v. M/s Aadhar Stumbh Township Pvt. Ltd. However, the said petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 23.08.2021 with liberty to approach this Court.

4. The order dated 23.08.2021 passed by the learned District Court is not placed on record. However, the petitioner has asserted that the Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to file its petition in this Court and therefore, the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing its remedy before the District Court is required to be excluded for calculating the period of limitation in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

5. The present petition was filed on 28.10.2021. However, there were certain defects and the same was returned to the petitioner and was again re-filed on 17.11.2021 but all the defects were not cured and, it was again returned for re-filing. The petition was filed and returned on account of certain defects on three occasions thereafter. It was finally re-filed on 01.12.2021.

6. The petitioner contends that since the present petition was filed within ninety days of the petitioner withdrawing the said petition before the District Court on 23.08.2021, there is no delay in filing the present petition. The petitioner has filed the application [I.A. 16867/2020] seeking condonation of delay for about 335 days on the ground that it was pursuing its petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the District Courts.

7. It is clear from the above that the petition filed before the learned District Court [OMP(COMM) 101/2020] was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. This was because it was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of disposal of the applications filed under Section 33 of the A&C Act, that is, 27.08.2020. The petitioner is correct that the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of disposal of the application under Section 33 of the A&C Act. The said application was disposed of on 27.08.2020 and, the three months period as specified under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act expired on 26.11.2020. According to the petitioner, it had filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act before the District Courts on 10.12.2020, that is, after a delay of fourteen days. The said delay could be condoned for sufficient cause.

8. The petitioner had withdrawn the said petition on 23.08.2021. However, the petitioner had filed the present petition on 28.10.2021 which was sixty-five days after the petitioner had withdrawn the petition. Even if the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the petition before the District Court is excluded, the present petition has been filed after seventy-eights days of the expiry of the limitation period of three months as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. The said delay is beyond the period of thirty days and cannot be condoned. Although the learned counsel has not relied upon the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) 3 of 2020 [reported as In Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the period of limitation was excluded by the Supreme Court and since the