The court upheld limitations on condonation applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines.

1. Legality and propriety of the order dated 26-11-2008, passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in MJC Case No. 117/04 is under assail in the instant petition.

2. Brief facts as projected by the petitioner are that : On 9-11-2004, the respondent / Railway moved an application under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for setting aside arbitral award dated 2-8-2010. On 22-2-2006 respondent moved an application under proviso to S.34 (3) of the Act for condonation of delay of seven days in filing application under S.34 of the Act. In the above application, it has been stated that the respondent had received the arbitral award on 10-8-2004 and thus application filed on 9-11-2004 was within limitation, but in any case, if it is found that respondent had received the arbitral award on 2-8-2004, then delay would be of seven days which is neither deliberate nor intentional.

3. The Court below vide order impugned allowed the application and condoned the delay. Hence this petition. 4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit although, respondent had filed application under S.34 of the Act on 9-11-2004 i.e. seven days after expiry of period of limitation, but since application for condonation of delay was filed on 22-2-2006, therefore, duly constituted application under S.34 was deemed to be filed on 22-2-2006 i.e. much after expiry of extended period of limitation under proviso to S.34 (3) of the Act.

5. According to S.34 (3) of the Act, an application for setting aside may not be after three months have lapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under S.33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. As per proviso to S.34 (3), if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. Since the application has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. three months or within thirty days thereafter, therefore, the respondent is precluded from filing an application for setting aside the arbitral award and the Court below went wrong in allowing the application for condonation of delay and in proceeding further with the application filed under S.34 of the Act. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Supreme Court in cases of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. , 2001 (8) SCC 470 : (AIR 2001 SC 4010) and Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission and others, JT 2010 (9) SC 451 : (AIR 2010 SC 2061).

6. On the other hand, Smt. Nausina Ali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 supported the order impugned and contended that the order deserves to be upheld.

7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned.

8. The core question involved for decision making in the instant case is whether proviso to S.34 (3) of the Act puts a bar on the Court to entertain the application filed under S.34 (1) and 34(2) of the Act if the application for condonation of delay has been filed on a date subsequent to date of filing of application under S.34 of the Act and also after expiry of extended period of limitation of thirty days as provided under proviso to S.34 (3) of the Act.

9. In the order to appreciate the contention put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, it would be appropri