The period of limitation for filing objections under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is three months, extendable by 30 days on giving sufficient reasons, and not thereafter.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral) - By a common order this Court proposes to dispose of appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act of 1996 for short) seeking to challenge the order of District Judge, Jalandhar dated 16.05.2012 whereby objections filed to the award of the Arbitrator stand dismissed.

2. For the purpose of adjudicating these appeals facts are being taken from FAO No.2000 of 2015. Admittedly, the land of the claimants / appellants was acquired by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for the purpose of widening of National Highway No.1-A. The competent authority assessed compensation which was not acceptable to the land owners. Consequently, the said award was challenged before the District Judge, Jalandhar who remanded the matter back and ultimately the Arbitrator who was appointed under Section 3G-(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956 gave his award on 25.07.2011.

3. Aggrieved against the said award, the claimants filed a Regular First Appeal as if filing an appeal against the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act. Registry thereafter, noted and raised objections regarding the very maintainability of the said proceedings in the High Court. The claimants thereafter filed objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 against the inadequate compensation allowed by the Arbitrator under the National Highway Authority Act, which were dismissed by the objecting Court primarily on the ground that the objections have been filed beyond the period of limitation.

4. Aggrieved against the said orders of dismissal of objections, the instant appeals have been filed. Learned counsel for the appellants would herein contend that the District Judge, Jalandhar has erred in not giving benefit of Article 14 of the Limitation Act 1963 ( Act of 1963 for short) while computing the period of limitation. It is argued that it was on the advice of the counsel who was entrusted with the matter that the award was challenged before the High Court and therefore, the delay in filing of the objections ought to have been condoned by giving the benefits of Article 14 of the Act of 1963 . In this regard counsel relies upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Goa vs. Western Builders, 2006 Vol-III R.C.R. (Civil) 475 wherein in a similar situation, the Supreme Court has held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly exclude the applicability of Article 14 of the Act of 1963 while further holding that if a statue is silent and there is no specific prohibition to the application of Limitation Act to a statute then benefit ought to be given which would advance the cause of justice. It was argued that the Arbitrator has not given the correct compensation for which the claimants would be entitled to.

5. Per contra, Mr. R. S. Madan learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents herein would contend that there is no infirmity with the orders as passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar as the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 were correctly dismissed, being beyond the period of limitation. In this regard he would rely on judgement rendered in Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co., (2002) 1 RCR (Civil) 124 wherein the provision of section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 have been interpreted by holding that objections to an award have to be filed within a period of 03 months and a maximum period of 30 days can be allowed if an appropriate application is filed giving sufficient cause as to why the objections were not filed within a period of 03 months. It was also argued that the award which is sought to be challenged by the appellants herein is in any case not justifiable since the Arbitrator has not given cogent reasons for allowing the compensation as assessed. It is argued that the reading of the award itself would show that the Arbitrator has allowed compensation without any evidence or sale deeds being produced on the record.