The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the amendment made to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, and that the delay in filing the application for setting aside the interim award was well explained and sufficient cause provided.

JUDGMENT

Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. - The instant application is filed by the applicants namely the Chief Engineer, PW(R&B) Department, Srinagar and Executive Engineer, PW(R&B) Department, Division, Budgam, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 read with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, for setting aside the interim award dated 28.06.2018, for an amount of Rs. 203.00 lacs passed by the sole Arbitrator, Er. Mian Bashir Ahmad (Retired Chief Engineer).

2. Keeping in view the prayer made and relief sought in the application in a petition filed under Sections 34 and 37, Mr. M.A. Chashoo, learned AAG, appearing counsel for the applicants was asked as to under which provision of law the interim award is passed, enabling the applicants to seek its reversal under appropriate provision of law, submits that the interim award is passed under Section 31(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, therefore, the application, seeking setting aside of the award be treated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. In view of the statement of Mr. M.A. Chashoo, learned AAG, the Court has now to decide the application by treating the same, seeking condonation of delay in filing the application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.

3. Admittedly, the interim award is passed on 28.06.2018 and received by the Chief Engineer PW(R&B) Department, Srinagar, on 29.06.2018 and the application, seeking setting aside of the interim award is filed on 26.02.2019. The period spends for filing of the application commencing from 30.06.2018 till 25.02.2019 is 270 days.

4. Mr. M.A. Chashoo, learned AAG, submits that in terms of amendment of Section 34 made by Act No. XXXV of 1997, the words in Sub-Section 3 for the words 'three months' are substituted by the words 'six months' and in proviso for the words 'three months' and the words 'thirty days', the words 'six months' and the words 'sixty days' shall be substituted respectively, therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay requires to be allowed as the Court can condone the delay, which is permissible in terms of Sub-Section 1 of Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997.

5. Mr. Sharik R. Jan, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant-respondent submits that there is no scope for giving benefit of the amendment made to the Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 in terms of the Act No. XXXV of 1997, as the said amendment is prospective in nature, therefore, the applicants were supposed to file the application within three months and could seek condonation of delay for another thirty days. However, the application is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, as such, the delay cannot be condoned, which is not permissible under law. Learned counsel further submits that the Court cannot by any stretch of imagination extend the period of filing of the application, as the said period is fixed by the statute and only power with the Court is to condone the delay to the permissible extent, which in the present case is only one month beyond the period of three months in terms of Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. It is submitted that the applicants had received the order on 29.06.2018, and had to file the application by 30th September, 2018, which they admittedly have filed on 26.02.2019. It is further submitted that though there is no sufficient cause shown by the applicants for condonation of delay of thirty days yet in the event Court is satisfied with such explanation, the thirty days delay can be condoned, which means the applicants had filed the appeal on 30th October, 2018 and beyond that there is no scope for filing such application. Learned counsel while strengthening the arguments has referred to and relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as (2019) 2 SCC 145.

6. Mr. M.A. Chashoo, learned AAG, appearing counsel for th