1. When an application, made under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ('the Act'), seeking to get set aside an arbitral award, is rejected by the District Judge, on the ground that the application is barred by limitation as prescribed by section 34(3), whether such an order can be challenged by way of an application made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an order, made under section 34, setting aside or refusing to set aside the arbitral award is, otherwise, appealable under section 37 of the Act.

2. Embedded in this question is also the question as to what is the period of limitation for the purpose of making, under section 34 of the Act, an application seeking to get set aside an arbitral award?

3. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel, for the petitioners, and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, for the respondent.

4. Before I enter into the merit of the questions, which have been raised challenging, in effect, the very maintainability of the writ petition, it is imperative that certain facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, be taken note of and are, therefore, set out, in brief, as under :

(i) A work order was issued, on 6.1.2004, by the petitioners in favour of the respondent for some construction work for estimated cost of Rs.1,68,54,171. The date of commencement of the work was 20.10.2004 and the period, stipulated for completion of the work, being two years, the work was to be completed on or before 19.1.2006. The work order was covered by an agreement, which had an arbitration clause if dispute arose between the parties concerned.

(ii) A dispute having arisen between the parties with regard to the execution of the work on the ground of alleged belated handing over of the site resulting into delay in completion of the work leading to escalation of the cost of construction, a sole arbitrator was, in course of time, appointed. The arbitrator accordingly passed an order, on 13.4.2008, allowing the claim of the respondent.

(iii) The petitioners, then, filed, in the court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, an application, under section 34 of the Act, seeking to get the award set aside on the ground that the impugned award was against the public policy of India. As the application, so made under section 34, was already barred by limitation, an application was also made by the petitioners, under section 34(3) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay of a period of 29 days. The learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, upon hearing the parties concerned, returned the said application on the ground that he had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the said application with further direction to present application in the court of competent jurisdiction.

(iv) The application, so returned, was, then, presented by the petitioners in the court of the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, who, by a speaking order, dated 10.6.2010, dismissed the application holding the same as time barred and the delay, in the light of the provisions of section 34(3), not being condonable.

(v) Without preferring any appeal against any of the two orders, dated 13.4.2008, and/or 10.6.2010, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, and the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, respectively, the present petitioners have impugned the award by making this writ application, under article 226, seeking to get the award set aside and quashed.

5. Is the present writ petition maintainable in law? This is the principal question. This question, in turn, brings us to yet another question and the question is : what is the period of limitation for the purpose of making an application, under section 34 of the Act, seeking to get set aside an arbitral award?

6. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be clearly borne in mind is that an application, under section 34, seeking to get set aside an arbitral award,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document