The limitation period for filing objections against an arbitration award is fixed by law and cannot be extended, as highlighted by the strict application of the Limitation Act provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Ms. A. Gayan for the appellants and learned counsel Mr. S. Sahu for the respondent.

2. The appellants in this case are the Union of India represented by the Commander Works Engineer (AF) Borjhar and Garrision Engineer (Air Force) Tezpur whereas, the respondent is Smt. Krishna Devi @Sabitri Devi, representing M/S SR Engineering Construction.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the respondent's father, Sukhram Dhiman (since deceased), a proprietor of a concern namely, S.R. Engineering Construction entered into a contract with the appellants for construction of the permanent armament section under Garrison Engineer (AF), Tezpur and accordingly secured Work order vide CA No. CWE/TEZ/08 of 87-88. On completion of work, the respondent received payment of bill raised on 18.01.1993, certifying an endorsement of 'no further claim'.

4. The appellant submits that the dispute pertaining to the contract had already been raised by the respondent to the appellant vide Letter No. SREC/TEZ/08/351 dated 11.12.1992, to resolve the issue by appointing an arbitrator under Clause-70 of the IAFW-2249 (General Conditions of Contract) of the arbitration agreement under the contract. This request was withdrawn by the respondent vide Letter No. SREC/TEZ/08/352 dated 11.01.1993. The respondent preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the Court of Delhi, and the application was registered as T.S. Case No. 170/94, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Against the order, the respondent preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed, requiring the Lower Court to return the petition for filing at the proper forum, and accordingly, the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide order dated 17.12.1999, returned the petition to the respondent for presentation in the proper Court with jurisdiction.

5. It is further submitted that the respondent preferred an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, in the Court of the District Judge, Sonitpur numbered as T.S. (Arbitration) No. 19/2003, and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.05.2004, against which the respondent preferred an appeal before this Court being Arbitration Appeal No.01/2005. This court vide judgment and order dated 21.09.2018, dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Court of the District Judge, Sonitpur for appropriate adjudication of the application made by the respondent under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, on its own merit and in accordance with law.

6. It is submitted that the District Judge, Sonitpur, allowed the respondent's case vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2019. Accordingly, the matter was referred to Arbitration, and an arbitrator was appointed violating Clause 6(b) of the Tender agreement bearing CA No. CWE/TEZ/08 of 87-88. The Court in T.S. Arbitration Case No. 19/2003, as per judgment and award dated 26.08.2019, appointed Mrs. Momita Borah, Advocate of Gauhati High Court, as sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the parties pertaining to CA No. CWE/TEZ/08 of 1987-88. The sole arbitrator entered into reference to decide the dispute between the parties in Arbitration Case No. 01/2009. Meanwhile, the arbitration proceeding commenced and both the parties were heard and an award dated 31.05.2022 was passed. Being aggrieved by the judgment, the appellants preferred an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

7. It is submitted that after receipt of notice, objection against Arbitration Case No. 01/2019 was filed on 16.12.2022, which was registered on 19.12.2022 as Misc. Arbitration Case No. 01/2022. The respondents also filed Misc(J) Case No. 61/2022 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. According to the respondents, the statutory period of filing objection, if any, commenced from the date of order on 21.09.2022 and this expired on 20.10.2022. Since no objection was filed