The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and unextendible nature of the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an award, and the non-applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in condoning the delay.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan against the impugned judgment dated 30.08.2008 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 41/2008 (383/2007) (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below'), whereby objections filed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act of 1996') against the arbitral award dated 29.07.2000 has been rejected.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal is that a work contract was given to the respondents for renewal work of pever and Hot Mix plant in 14 Km. Length in between Kms. 100 to 149 (in Kms. 101/0 to 104/0, 132/0 to 136/0, 141/0 to 146/0 to 149/0) on Agra Road, NH-11 for which Agreement No. 26, year 1993-94 was executed between the parties. There was an arbitration clause in this Agreement to resolve the dispute. During the progress of the work, dispute arose between the parties. Then the respondents submitted application before the District Judge under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act of 1996, who appointed an arbitrator vide order dated 28.08.1998 to resolve the dispute. After hearing both sides, the Arbitrator passed an award of Rs. 4,33,161.79/- with interest @ 18% from 25.04.1997 till its actual payment vide award dated 29.07.2000. And the copy of this Award was forwarded to Chief Engineer, PWD (National Highway), Jaipur.

3. When the award was not satisfied, the respondents submitted an application before the Court of District Judge, Jaipur for passing a decree in terms of the award dated 29.07.2000. When the notices of this application were served upon the appellant-State, the appellant submitted objection on 22.02.2001 by filing reply of the aforesaid application in respect of the award dated 29.07.2000. Since there was delay in filing objections, hence an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was submitted for condoning the delay.

4. The learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track No. 7) Jaipur rejected the objections vide impugned order dated 30.08.2008 by holding that the objections were not filed within the time of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 and also held that the objections cannot be decided on merits as the same were beyond limitation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that copy of the award was not made available to the officer-in-charge of the appellant by the Arbitrator. Hence delay has occurred in filing the objections but the court below has committed an illegality in rejecting the objections by treating the same as time barred.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter was contested by the appellant before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed the award on 29.07.2000 after hearing both sides and copy of the award was forwarded to the Chief Engineer, PWD (National Highway), Jaipur. Counsel further submitted that the appellant was well aware about the passing of the award, as they have participated in the entire arbitral proceedings. And now the objections were submitted beyond the prescribed period of limitation contained under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, which were not maintainable in the light of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. : 2001 (3) Arb. LR 345 (SC).

7. Heard and considered the argument of both sides.

8. Having noted the sequence, the only aspect which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was within the period of limitation provided therein. If not, whether the delay is condonable by exercise of power under Section 5 of Limitation Act?

9. To appreciate the matter in its correct perspective it is necessary at the threshold to take note of Section 34(3) of Act of 1996 providing for the period of limitation, which is as hereunde