The prescribed period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is three months, and the 30-day extension does not constitute part of this period.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act of 1996) is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi whereby he dismissed the application filed by the appellants for setting aside the arbitration award dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on the ground of limitation.

2. The material facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the land and building of the appellants were acquired for construction/widening of the National Highway No.21. After completion of codal formalities award No. 46/4 dated 03.05.2018 came to be passed. Since the appellants were aggrieved by the award passed by the competent authority, they filed an application under Section 3 (G)(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short, ‘the Act of1956) for enhancement and determination of compensation.

3. The respondents contested the said application by filing reply, which eventually led to passing of the arbitration award.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitration award, the appellants preferred an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 before the learned District Judge, who vide judgment dated 02.09.2024 dismissed the same on the ground of limitation.

5. It is not in dispute that the award was received by the appellants on 10.11.2023 and the courts at Mandi were closed for winter vacations w.e.f. 22.01.2024 to 18.02.2024 and reopened on 19.02.2024 when the objections came to be filed by the appellant.

6. Learned court below as observed above, dismissed the objections on the ground of delay by concluding that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which extends the period when the court is closed, applies to the period of 90 days and not to the extendable period of 30 days.

7. The aforesaid conclusion as per the learned Court below was based upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita vs. Walchandnagar Industries Limited, 2023 (8) SCC 453.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act ought to have been calculated in a manner prescribed under the Act read with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, which would clearly show that objections have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The findings recorded by the court below be set-aside.

9. On the other hand, Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, appearing for the respondents would support the findings along with the reasons recorded by the learned court below. He submitted that in any event, benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is available only if the proceedings are within the prescribed period of limitation, which shall be three months in this case, in terms of Section 34 (3) of the Act of 1996. He would strongly rely upon the decision in Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita case supra, and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to therein.

10. The facts are undisputed. As observed above, the award was received by the appellants on 10.11.2023 and the courts at Mandi were closed for winter vacations w.e.f. 22.01.2024 to 18.02.2024 and reopened on 19.02.2024 when the petition under Section 34 came to be filed.

11. The period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is governed by subsection (3) of Section 34.

12. Subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 reads as under:

“(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 suffic