ORDER :

The instant appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act), has been filed by the appellant for setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP(M) No. 63 of 2019, whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, against the award dated 16.1.2019 came to be dismissed.

2. An arbitration award to the extent of Rs. 4,28,98,551/ alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum came to be passed against the appellant and aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award. Alongwith the same, he also filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the same on the ground that at no point of time had the arbitrator supplied the signed copy of the award till 1.8.2019, therefore there was no occasion for the appellant to have filed the objections.

3. Learned Single Judge, after perusing the record came to the conclusion that signed copy of the award was supplied by the Arbitrator to one Robin Kumar Bansal, Assistant Executive Engineer with the respondent HPSEBL on 16.1.2019 and therefore the appellant could not feign ignorance regarding passing of the award.

4. It was thus concluded by learned Single Judge that having supplied copy of the award, the appellant failed to file the objections, within the stipulated period and therefore, objections were liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation as per provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

6. It is no longer resintegra that the period of limitation for filing the objections would only commence after signing of the award. A reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. vs. M/s Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2021 (7) SCC 657.

7. In fact a similar reiteration of law can be found in an earlier judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, which is authored by one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan) in case titled as “Himachal Pradesh Housing Board and another versus Ranjit Singh Rana” ILR 2015 (I) HP 488.

8. Section 34 (3) of the Act reads as under:

“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.”

9. Section 34(3) of the Act provides that an application for setting aside the award cannot be made after three months and it is only if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making an application within such period of three months, which may entertain an application within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter, after considering Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act.

10. An identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India versus Popular Construction Company”, (2001) 8 SCC 470, wherein it was observed as under:

“11. Thus, where the legislature prescribed a special limitation for the purpose of the appeal and the period of limitation of 60 days was to be computed after taking the aid of Sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, the specific inclusion of these sections meant that to that extent only the provisions of the Limitation Act stood extended and the applicability of the other provisions, by necessary implication stood excluded.

1