The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are strict and must be adhered to, and the delay in filing objections cannot be condoned, even if the arbitral award is alleged to be a nullity.

Arun Palli, J.

The State is in appeal against the order dated 05.10.2016, rendered by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which its application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay in filing the objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), has since been dismissed.

The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

2. Respondent No.1 i.e. M/s Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal, was assigned the work for construction of Lohand Syphon with intake regulator at RD 0.149 Km of SYL Canal Project. Parties to the lis had entered into a work agreement on 11.03.1985. For, during the execution of the work a dispute arose between the parties, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. And, vide award dated 28.02.2015, the claim of the respondent was partly accepted. Being aggrieved by the arbitral award, the appellants-State filed objections under Section 34 of the Act on 09.09.2015, before the District Judge, Roop Nagar. Who in turn, entrusted the matter to the Additional District Judge. However, the objection petition was returned in original to the State, for the Court was of the view that since the award was rendered at Patiala, the Courts at Patiala alone would have the jurisdiction to decide the objections. Resultantly, the State filed fresh objections on 04.07.2016, before the District Judge, Patiala. For, concededly the objections filed by the State were barred by limitation, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 250 days, was also moved therewith. On a consideration of the matter in issue, the Additional District Judge, Patiala, reached a conclusion that in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act, the objections to the arbitral award could be filed within three months from the date of the receipt of the award. And, even if, no such objections were filed within the specified time, the Court, in terms of the proviso to Section 34(3), could still entertain the application/objections, if filed within the next 30 days, provided it was satisfied that the objector was prevented by a sufficient cause to move the Court within limitation. But the State had filed objections much after even the extended period envisaged under the proviso. So much so, the Additional District Judge, Roop Nagar had returned the objection petition on 05.01.2016, whereas the application/objections under Section 34 were presented before the District Judge, Patiala on 04.07.2016. Thus, it could not be said either that objections were filed within a reasonable time after they were returned by the Additional District Judge, Roop Nagar. Further, no benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be granted, for the objections filed by the State even at Roop Nagar were barred by time. As a result, the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections and consequently the objection petition were dismissed. That is how, as indicated above, the State is in appeal before this Court.

3. Mr. Gupta, learned State counsel does not dispute that the objections filed by the State were grossly barred by time. However, he submits that the period of limitation envisaged under Section 34(3) of the Act to question the arbitral award was hardly of any consequence in the present case, for the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Roop Nagar lacked jurisdiction to even appoint an Arbitrator. Therefore, he submits, that the arbitration proceedings as also the arbitral award, dated 28.02.2015, were a nullity. Further, he submits that any order, judgment or a decree that is a nullity, never acquires finality and, thus, its invalidity could be established at any stage, and even in the execution proceedings. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as also this Court in State of Haryana and another v. Kartar Singh (D) through Lrs., 2013(11) SCC 375; Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. L