The limitation period for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond specified timelines, maintaining strict adherence to legal provisions.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ. - The primary question involved in these two appeals is whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended (for short, the Act) before the learned Commercial Court, West Tripura, Agartala was barred by the delay being beyond the period of three months and thirty days in terms of Section 34 (3) of the Act and its proviso.

2. The appellant is a contractor who has raised three more grounds of challenge in the present appeal preferred under Section 37 (1)(c) of the Act read with Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2015), i.e. (ii) Whether the learned Commercial Court, West Tripura at Agartala had the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 34 of the Act as the subject matter of the dispute pertains to Longtharai Valley which is in Dhalai District? (iii) Whether the Court of Additional District Judge, West Tripura at Agartala would be the competent court as prescribed under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act read with Section 10 of the Act of 2015? and (iv) whether the explanations offered by the respondent seeking condonation of delay constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay?

3. In order to appreciate the issues at hand the relevant facts of both the appeals are being chronicled in a brief manner hereinafter. In Arbitration Appeal No.5 of 2023, the appellant was appointed for execution of works contract, namely, construction of RCC Bridge (under RIDF-XIV) on Chailengta-Chawmanu road (i) over local Durgacherra at chainage 6.85 km Job No.TP/COM/258/08-09, (ii) over local Gurucharancherra at Chainage 8.35 km (Job No.TP/COM/259/08-09, (iii) Over local Hezacherra at Chainage 9.35 km (Job No. TP/COM/260/08-09. On account of a dispute which arose during the execution of the agreement, the respondent employer terminated the contract on December 11, 2018.

4. In Arbitration Appeal No.6 of 2023 the appellant was appointed for execution of works contract, namely, replacement of existing SPT Bridge by RCC Bridge over (i) Localcherra on the road from AA road to Maslimukh via Mundapara at Ch.5.00 km (length-15.00m) Job No.TP/COM/57/2012-13, (ii) Jarulcherra on the road from Manu Fire Service Station to Bichitra Das para at Ch.0.25 km (length-30.00 km), Job No. TP/COM/58/2012-13, (iii) Malidharcherra on the road from Kacharicherra TSR Camp to Kacharicherra Regrouping Centre road at Ch.0.21 km (length-60.00m), Job No. TP/COM/59/2012-13, sanctioned for implementation under NABARD (RIDF-XVIII). On account of a dispute which arose during the execution of the agreement, the respondent employer terminated the contract on July 1st, 2019.

5. On an application under Section 11 (6) of the Act, this Court appointed an Arbitrator in respect of both the disputes vide order dated 5th February, 2021. The learned Arbitrator registered case No. 2/ARB/SS/2021 in respect of Arbitration Appeal No. 05 of 2023 and case No. 1/ARB/SS/2021 in respect of Arbitration Appeal No. 06 of 2023. After exchange of pleadings and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going t