This appeal has arisen from an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby an application seeking extension of time made by the appellant herein in Application No.3693 of 2004, was dismissed.

2. The said application under Sections 9 and 43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, came to be filed under the following circumstances:

.(a) The appellant trading in shares through the first respondent, a share and stockbroking company, found that the first respondent was acting detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the appellant by committing fraudulent acts in refusing to sell the appellants shares despite the request to do so in view of the highest level of share prices in the market. Consequent upon the same, the appellant made a complaint to the second respondent on 4. 2001, which brought forth a reply on 30.4.2001 from the first respondent denying the allegations. The same was followed by a rejoinder by the appellant and also a reply by the opposite party. The second respondent informed the appellant that the complaint was referred to the Investor Grievance Cell (IGC) of the NSC for resolution. By a communication dated 8. 2001, the appellant was advised to refer the matter to arbitration. Accordingly, the arbitral proceedings were initiated at the instance of the appellant by filing an application on 29. 2001 claiming a sum of Rs.35 lakhs and also paying an arbitration fee of Rs.12,000/-. A counter was filed by the first respondent. After taking into consideration the relevant documents and oral submissions, the Arbitrators made an order on 22. 2002 relying upon the Bye-laws and regulations of the second respondent. The claim of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

.(b) Pursuant to the instructions given by the Grievance Cell to move the Court for extension of limitation period stipulated under the arbitration agreement, the appellant filed the said application seeking extension of time. An ex-parte order of extension of time was made on 29. 2004 granting four weeks time for submitting the dispute to the arbitrator. On appearance, the first respondent made an Application No.4908 of 2004 seeking to set aside the ex-parte order made in Application No.3693 of 2004. Accordingly, the order passed in Application No.3693 of 2004 was set aside with an observation that the matter has got to be decided only while hearing Application No.3693/2004. Thereafter, Application No.3693 of 2004 was taken up for consideration. The learned Single Judge heard the submissions put forth by both sides both factual and legal and took the view that the application required an order of dismissal, and accordingly dismissed. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the applicant.

3. The only question that would arise for consideration in this appeal is whether the extension of time as asked for by the appellant/applicant in the said application could be ordered.

4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel Mr.P.V.S.Giridhar made the following submissions:

.(i) It was not an award, but only a return of the papers recording that it was barred by time.

.(ii) The application seeking extension of time under Sec.43(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, should have been ordered. But, the said application has been dismissed without proper appreciation of the legal position in that regard.

(iii) The second respondent referred the appellants complaint to SEBI for resolution. By a letter dated 8. 2001, the SEBI advised the appellant to initiate arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, arbitral proceedings were initiated on 29. 2001 without delay. The same was dismissed by the award dated 22. 2002, on the sole ground of bar of period of limitation without any pronouncement on merits. Hence the appellant was constrained to file an application under Sec.43(3) of the said Act seeking extension of time, which should have been allowed.

.(iv) The findings o