JUDGMENT :

AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH, J.

[1] Heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Brizet, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Purvesh Buttan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The present petition had been filed assailing the order dated 25-07-2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Imphal West, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 32 of 2024 (Ref:- Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023). By the said order, the application filed by the respondent for amendment of its reply dated 14-08-2023 filed in connection with the Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023 had been allowed.

[2] As per the pleadings set out by the parties, the facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner awarded the contract for improvement of Bishnupur-Nungba Road and an agreement for the work was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent on 12-06-2023 for a contract value of Rs. 92,25,04,156.23 p.

[3] Certain disputes arose between the parties during the execution of the work which could not be settled and the respondent invoked arbitration clause for adjudication of the disputes through arbitration. Accordingly, a sole arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the disputes.

[4] After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal passed an award dated 20-02-2023 for an amount of Rs. 96,16,28,522/- in favour of the respondent.

[5] On 17-07-2023, the petitioner filed an Arbitration Petition before the Court of District Judge, Imphal West, for setting aside the Arbitral Award dated 20-02-2023. An application, registered as Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023, was also filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) praying for entertaining the said accompanying arbitration petition.

The respondent filed its reply dated 14-08-2023 to the said condonation application and the petitioner filed its rejoinder dated 16-08-2023 to the said reply filed by the respondent.

[6] The original stand taken by the petitioner in its condonation application, i.e., Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023, was that the petitioner received the Arbitral Award on 14-03-2023 and as such, the limitation period of 120 days as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act expired on 12-07-2023.

[7] Taking into consideration the original stand of the petitioner made in its condonation application that the petitioner received the Arbitral Award on 14-03-2023 and as the arbitration petition was filed only on 17-07-2023, a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the said petition was raised by the respondent in its reply dated 14-08-2023 on the ground that the said petition was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 120 days as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act and the court has no power to condone such delay as the period of limitation is sacrosanct and cannot be condoned beyond the statutory period as provided under the Act.

[8] Another preliminary objection raised by the respondent in its reply dated 14-08-2023 was that as the petitioner's counsel was apprised about the passing of the award on 20-02-2023 and the signed copy of the award was also served upon the petitioner, the Arbitration Petition filed by the petitioner was beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act, hence liable to be rejected/dismissed on that ground itself.

[9] It is the case of the respondent that it was only after the argument at length was addressed on behalf of the respondent in connection with the condonation application and orders on the said application was reserved, the petitioner filed the following two applications:-

(a) Judl. Misc. Case No. 45 of 2023 (Ref:- Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023) with a prayer for permitting the petitioner to amend the condonation application (Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023) as proposed in the said application. The proposed amendments are as under:-

“7. That, this application is bonafide