JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

1. The appeal impugns the judgment dated 24.04.2019 whereby the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

2. Subject award was rendered on 18.06.2018. The admitted case of appellant is that the copy of the award was received in their office on 02.07.2018. This is also substantiated by the Dak Receipt Register wherein an entry has been made of receipt of the award on

02.07.2018.

3. The contention of the appellant is that the award was sent to the Legal Advisor (Defence) for an opinion, which opinion was received only on 06.09.2018 opining that objections under Section 34 of the Act need to be filed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the objections could only have been filed after the opinion had been received from the Legal Advisor, the date of commencement of limitation should be treated as 06.09.2018. Subject Objections having been filed on 19.11.2018 and are accordingly within the time.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Radha Bai & Ors. Vs. P. Ashok Kumar & Anr. 2019 13 SCC page 445 to contend that for the delivery of the award to the party, in terms of the Section 34 of the Act, to be effective, has to be construed as the receipt by the party who has knowledge of the proceedings and would be the best person to understand and appreciate the award and to take a decision in the matter i.e. filing objection of the Section 34 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel contends that as the LA (Defence) is the Competent Authority to opine as to whether objections under Section 34 of the Act have to be preferred or not, the date when LA (Defence) renders his opinion should be construed as the date of receipt of the award.

7. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant. It is an admitted position that the award was received on 02.07.2018. The party filing objection is Union of India. Minutes sheet and office noting have been placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though these were not before the Court dealing with the objections, however, they in fact substantiate the reasoning of the Trial Court.

8. The minute sheets show that the award was received on 02.07.2018 and thereafter the concerned officer i.e. Deputy Director Master General Ordinance (now designated as Master General Sustenance) had forwarded the file to the integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence (Army) for an opinion on 16.08.2018. The file was thereafter routed through several Officers and finally reached the LA (Defence) on 29.08.2018. LA (Defence) rendered his opinion on

06.09.2018.

9. It may be noticed that even on the date when the opinion was rendered, the 90 days period had not elapsed. The appellant could have filed the Objection under Section 34 immediately thereafter. The Objections were ultimately filed on 19.11.2018.

10. Calculated from 02.07.2018, the Objections were filed beyond the period of 90 days and further 17 days after the extendable period of 30 days had also expired.

11. Appellant had also filed an application for condonation of delay which further shows that the argument of learned counsel of the appellant is not sustainable for the reason that if the period of limitation, were to be calculated from 06.09.2018, then there was no necessity of filing an application for condonation of delay. Calculated from 06.09.2018, the objection dated 17.11.2018 (filed on 19.11.2018) would have been within the period of 90 days. This in fact confirms that appellants were aware that there was delay in filing the objection. 12. The question that then arises for consideration is as to whether the Courts have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days and the extendable period of 30 days even for sufficient cause shown.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. V. Union of India (2019)