The limitation for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act begins from the date a related application is disposed of, not just from receipt of the award.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this application, prayer has been made by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, dated 07.10.2019.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this application are that learned Arbitrator has passed an award in a Claim Petition filed by the non­applicant (Chander Shekhar). This award was announced on 07.10.2019. The signed copy of the said award was received by the applicants on 22.10.2019. Alongwith petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act assailing the award, application has been filed under Section 34 (3) of the said Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition.

3. As already mentioned hereinabove, the signed copy of the award was received by the applicants on 22.10.2019, but the petition alongwith the application for condonation of delay was initially filed in the Registry of this Court on 06.04.2022.

4. In terms of the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to the award can be filed within three months from the date on which a party making an application as received the arbitral award and if a request has been made under Section 33 of the Act from the date on which that request has been disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. Proviso provides that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause for making the application within the period of three months, it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

5. The application praying for condonation of delay has been opposed by the non­applicants/claimants on the ground that as the application was filed beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry of three months, therefore, this Court has no power in law to allow the application filed for condonation of delay.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the application filed for condonation of delay.

7. In terms of the averments made in the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition, one of the reasons assigned therein is that after the pronouncement of the award, the claimants filed an application on 02.11.2019 under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking amendment/ rectification of the award. The applicants were put to notice of the same and they filed their response thereto. According to the applicants, on one hand the claimants filed an application for rectification of the award, but on the other hand they also filed an Execution Petition which forced the applicants to file the objections under Section 34 of the Act despite the fact that the award has not yet attained finality.

8. It is a matter of record that after the award was announced by the learned Arbitrator, the claimants filed an application under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

9. When the Execution Petition was heard by this Court on 04.03.2022, the following order was passed:­

“By way of this execution petition, the petitioner is praying for the execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration, titled as Chander Shekhar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 07.10.2019. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the present execution petition is pre­mature for the reason that after the pronouncement of the award, an application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Arbitrator seeking correction in award dated 07.10.2019, which is still pending adjudication and as per him, in the absence of the said award attaining finality post adjudication of this application, the judgment debtor is not in a position to seek its legal remedies against the award in issue and the same also renders