JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. In instance case, in a dispute between the parties referred for arbitration, the Arbitrator had passed an award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter in short ‘the Act’) on 1.10.2019. Signed copy of award was provided to parties on the same day.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with award, appellants had preferred objections before learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Act along with an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. Objections along with application for condonation of delay were filed on 17th February, 2020 after expiry of 138 days as Courts were closed for winter vacation from 20th January, 2020 to 17th February, 2020.

3. Learned District Judge, referring the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Subash Projects and Marketing Limited, (2012) 2 SCC 624 has dismissed the application for condonation of delay being not filed within limitation period as provided under Section 34 of the Act.

4. The aforesaid dismissal of application by learned District Judge has been assailed in present appeal.

5. Section 34(3) of the Act provides the limitation period for filing objections under Section 34 of the Act against the award passed by the Arbitrator, which reads as under:

“34(1)............

(2)..................

(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.”

6. As evident from the aforesaid provision that Section 34(3) of the Act provides the limitation period of 3 months for filing objections and proviso thereof provides a further period of 30 days which can be condoned by Court for sufficient cause shown by applicant preventing him from filing objections within three months. Therefore, prescribed period for limitation is 90 days and 30 days are the extended period which can be condoned by Court after three months. It has been specifically provided in the Proviso that Court is not empowered to extend the period beyond 30 days.

7. As per Section 43 of the Act, provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the arbitration as it applies to the proceedings in the Court. Therefore, it has been contended on behalf of State that in view of provisions of Section 4 of Limitation Act, the period when Court was closed deserves to be excluded for calculation of period available for filing objections.

8. In present case, limitation period prescribed in Section 34(3) had expired on 1st January, 2020, but, not during the closure of Court as Court had closed for winter vacation on 20.1.2020 (19.1.2020 was Sunday).

9. Section 4 of Limitation Act is applicable for extension of prescribed period of limitation. 30 days provided in Proviso of Section 34(3) is not a prescribed limitation period, but, it is a limit of the Court with respect to period for which Court can condone the delay after expiry of prescribed period of limitation of three months.

10. The aforesaid issue is no longer res-integra in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court, as referred by learned District Judge also, in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board’s case wherein the Court has held as under:

“9. Section 43(1) of the 1996 Act provides that the 1963 Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court. The 1963 Act is thus applicable to the matters of arbitration covered by the 1996 Act save and except the extent its applicability has been excluded by virtue of the express provision contained in Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act.

10.