Judgment :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. This order shall dispose of the instant application seeking condonation of delay in filing review petition titled as J&K Economic Reconstruction Agency versus M/s Kamal Builders.

2. The background facts those emerge from the case in hand are that the non-applicant herein had been allotted work for improvement and upgradation of Jehangir Chowk – Karan Nagar – SKIMS Road, which work is stated to have been suspended by the non-applicant herein without any valid reason, resulting into termination of the contract vide notice dated 13.5.2011, which consequently gave rise to disputes between the parties. The said disputes are stated to have been referred to arbitration in terms of Arbitration Clause whereupon the arbitrators are stated to have passed an award dated 30.8.2014.

3. The award so made by the arbitrators is stated to have come to the notice of the petitioner/applicant herein in the month of December 2014, whereupon a photostat copy of the award is stated to have been obtained by the applicant herein on 22.12.2014.

4. It is being stated that after obtaining copy of the award, the petitioner/applicant herein intended to challenge the same under the statute and consequently under section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1997 (for short ‘Act of 1997’), same was thrown challenge inter alia on the ground that the same had a patent error on the face of the record inasmuch as it had directed the petitioner/applicant herein to immediately release the bank guarantee to the respondent/non-applicant herein within a period of four months from the date of the issuance of the award and in case of failure an interest of 6% thereof was allowed till the bank guarantee is actually released. It is being stated that the said bank guarantee had been subject of order passed on an application filed under section 9 of the Act wherein the court of District Judge, Srinagar had stayed the encashment of the same till the dispute was resolved through arbitration.

5. It is being stated that the award in question had sought to be set aside on the basis of section 31(5) inasmuch as the failure of the arbitrators to provide signed copy of the award to the applicant herein. The ground so urged is stated to bring the case under section 34(2)(ii) being against the public policy. The application under section 34 of the act is stated to have been decided on 4.2.2015 wherein the court is stated to have observed that the grievance set out in the application under section 34 would be redressed in the event period allowed by the arbitral tribunal is directed to be commenced after the applicant got copy of the award as the short grievance set out in the application had been that copy of the award as required under the act of 1997 was not provided to the petitioner/applicant herein and, therefore, was not in a position to act upon the award within three months from the time allowed by the tribunal.

6. It is being stated that the court while disposing of the aforesaid application filed under section 34 vide order dated 4.2.2015, had not been properly assisted in so far the prayer seeking setting aside of the award related to the claim No. 5(b). The court is also stated to have not dealt with the situation of not providing signed copy of the award in terms of section 31(5) of the parties and its effect thereof. Thus a patent error is stated to have occurred on the face of the record which needed rectification.

7. It is being stated that after passing of the order dated 4.2.2015, the petitioner/applicant herein filed an arbitration application No. 8/2015 again for setting aside of the arbitral award which is stated to have been dismissed by this court on 13.5.2015 holding that the second application under section 34 will not lie. Against the said order dated 13.5.2015, an appeal is stated to have been filed being No. 92/2015 which too is stated to have been dismissed by Division Bench on 29.5.2015 as withdrawn on the submis