By the Court.—The short point involved in this first appeal from order is whether the appellant is entitled for exclusion of the period from 6.2.2004 to 18.7.2005 during which period the appellant had been pursuing a wrong remedy before the Delhi High Court for the purposes of limitation for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for short “the Act”).

2. The award under the Act was made on 11.12.2003. Against the said award the appellant preferred objections under Section 34 of the Act but quite belatedly on 10.8.2005, though the limitation prescribed by the Act was only 90 days which could have been condoned for sufficient reasons for another 30 days. Thus, an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was moved by the appellant on 10.11.2005 alleging that objections were wrongly filed on 6.2.2004 before the Delhi High Court which was registered as C.M.P. No. 30 of 2004 and was returned for presentation to appropriate Court of jurisdiction as the Courts at Delhi were possessed with no jurisdiction.

3. Heard Sri Vishnu Gupta learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anurag Khanna for contesting respondent No. 2.

4. As a small question needs decision, required record which have been referred in argument are on record, both sides jointly requested for deciding the appeal, the Court having given ample opportunity of hearing is deciding the appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant acted bona fidely and it was in good faith that the objections were preferred before the Delhi High Court though it had no jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, the period during which the objections were pending before the said Court is liable to be excluded and the appellant is entitled to benefit of Section 14 which has wrongly been denied by the Court below, particularly when the award is null and void for the reason of appointment of another arbitrator.

6. Learned counsel in support of his submission placed reliance on a judgment given by the Apex Court in the case of Dharma Prathishthanam v. Madhok Construction Private Ltd., JT 2004 (9) SC 335 and the decision given by the Apex Court in the case of Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169.

7. In reply, Sri R.N.Singh has submitted that the objections of the appellant have not been decided on merits by the Court below. They have been rejected on the ground of delay as the appellant was not found to be pursuing the remedy before Delhi High Court in good faith. Therefore, the scope of the appeal is limited to the ground of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and illegality in the award or that the award is void cannot be the scope or argued in this appeal.

8. In support of the submission about the scope of the appeal, learned counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court given in the case of Babu Ram Ashok Kumar and another v. Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1964 All 534.

9. To begin with we are to address about the scope of the appeal as submitted. The learned District Judge has rejected the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act as barred by time and refused to give the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. In the judgment given by this Court in the case of Babu Ram Ashok Kumar (supra) it has been clearly emphasised that the Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith after giving due weight to relevant matters. The observation as made by the Full Bench of this Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment is quoted below :

“9. A Court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matter. If two v