CM APPL. 11875/2025 (EXMP.) & CM APPL. 11876/2025 (EXMP.)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications are disposed of.

FAO 46/2025, CM APPL. 11874/2025

3. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”), thereby assailing the impugned judgment/order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Arbitration Petition No.286/2018.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder is present on advance notice.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is borne out from the record that the impugned award was passed on 08.11.2017, and a copy of the same was served uponthe appellant on 14.11.2017. It is also evident that before instituting the appeal under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, the appellant had filed the application/objection under Section 34 of the Act on 12.02.2018 in this Court.

6. It appears that the application/objection remained under objection with the Registry, and eventually, the appellant was informed on 15.03.2018 that the jurisdiction does not lie with the High Court but instead with the District Judge. Following this, the appeal/objection was withdrawn by the appellant from the High Court on 27.03.2018, and thereafter, the application/objection was filed before the learned District Judge on 31.03.2018.

7. It is borne out from the record that before the learned District Judge, the respondent/decree holder raised a preliminary objection regarding the application being barred by limitation in view of Section 34(3), (An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:

Provided that 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.)

8. The learned District Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2025 found that the application/objection was barred by limitation. It would be expedient to reproduce the operative portions of the order that read as under: -

“18. In view of the submissions of the parties and material placed on record, the foremost issue for this Court to determine is that

“Whether the petition under Section 34 has been filed within the time period prescribed under the Arbitration &- Conciliation Act"

19. The record of the case lucidly manifests that the impugnedaward was passed on 08.11.20017, and the same was supplied to the petitioner on 14.11.2017. In view of this, the limitation to file objections was commenced on 14.11.2017, and the statutory period for filing a petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act expired on 14.02.2018. Though the present petition was filed on 31.03.2018, which was beyond the statutory and extended limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.

20. The petitioner in support of saving the limitation period filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act and sought the condonation of 43 days in filing the present petition, whereas, in the application under Section 34(3) filed with the petition, the petitioner sought the delay merely of 07 days. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the Ld. Counsel was not aware of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, and therefore, objections were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide dairy no. E-44105/2018. Thereafter, only on 22.03.2018 it was explained by the officials of the registry to the Ld. Counsel, and eventually it caused a delay in filing the same before the District Court. O