( 1 ) THE order impugned in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act no. 26 of 1996 (hereinafter called "the Act") is dated 01. 04. 2005 passed by the District Judge, lucknow rejecting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as not maintainable and dismissing the objection under Section 34 of the Act as barred by limitation.

( 2 ) IT appears that pursuant to some arbitration agreement, the arbitrators were appointed, who gave their arbitral award on 05. 01. 2001. A certified copy of the said award was served on the appellants on 01. 02. 2001. An objection purporting to be under Section 34 of the Act along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed before the learned District Judge, lucknow on 09. 06. 2003. As such, there was delay of 2 years, 4 months and 8 days. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation act and pleaded that objection under Section 34 of the Act was barred by limitation provided under the law, which was three months only. The learned District Judge, Lucknow relying on the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document