The delay condonation for setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act may be justified in exceptional cases involving Government funds and mal-intentions of the department's officers.

Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.

1. By the Court.--The instant civil revision arises out of a proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. Three awards dated 25.11.2007, 14.2.2008 and 29.3.2009 are said to have been received by the parties on one and the same date. The application for setting aside the arbitral awards was filed on 4th November, 2010. The revisionist submits that these applications were filed at a very belated stage le. after a lapse of 107 days; 1005 days and 610 days respectively. These applications were registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 71 of 2010. An order was passed by Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi on 20.12.2010 in the aforesaid miscellaneous case condoning the delay in challenging the awards by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (for short "J.S.E.B.") under Section 34 of the Act. The Sub Judge was of the opinion that since the award relates to Government money and involves an amount of more than Rs. 2.22 crores, a complete hearing is essential and, on this consideration, delay was condoned.

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid condonation of delay, the instant revision is preferred by the revisionist, one of the parties before the arbitral Tribunal.

Sub-Clause (3) of Section 34 of the Act provides period of limitation of three months for challenging the award and the limitation is to be calculated from the date the arbitral award was received. Proviso to sub-section (3) grants liberty to the party to apply for condonation of delay in case the application under Section 34 of the Act is preferred after a lapse of three months, the Court is entitled to entertain the application within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter.

4. The submission of Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist, is that the first award was dated 25th November, 2007; second dated 14th February, 2008 and third award dated 29th March, 2009. All the three awards were challenged in the year 2011 and, therefore, the application was moved much beyond time and the Court below committed an error while entertaining the application under Section 34 of the Act and extending the benefit of condonation of delay, whereas the Court itself was divested of the jurisdiction after a lapse of three months or extended period of further thirty days.

5. The J.S.E.B. had given an explanation for condonation of delay that the officers of the Board had entered into a criminal conspiracy and this conspiracy came to light, only when the progress of APDRP work under package "D" was reviewed. Consequent on the aforesaid discovery, a first information report was lodged against the erring officers of the Board with Vigilance Department. It was, therefore, emphasised that huge amount of public money is involved and if it is left unchallenged only on account of a conspiracy hatched by certain erring officers of the Board, it is a huge loss to the State Exchequer. It is also averred that the proceedings before the arbitrator is still continuing till date and such award which is challenged cannot be said to be barred by limitation. While disputing the arguments of the revisionist, the submission is that J.S.E.B. received notice from the sole arbitrator for further hearing on 14.11.2010 and proceeded with the same matter for which the preliminary and subsequent two awards are under challenge in the instant proceeding. Objection under Section 9 of the Act is still pending before the sole Arbitrator. In the circumstances, the contention of the opposite party is that there is no delay whatsoever.

6. The revisionist has vehemently opposed the explanation and the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party and while criticising the order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi in the miscellaneous case while granting liberty and condoning the delay, had submitted that different yard-stick cannot be used for the State visa-vis a private contesting party i.e. the revisionist who is a