$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 09.04.2026 + O.M.P. (COMM) 181/2024 & I.A. 9043/2024 (Ex.)

KRISHNA UDYOG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kamlesh Ojha, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC along with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma and Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR JUDGMENT (ORAL)

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, assailing the Award dated 14.11.2023, Impugned Award. By way of the Impugned Award, a three-member Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the claims preferred by the Petitioner herein.

I. On preliminary objection concerning the delay

2. At the outset, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present Petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

3. This Court proposes to consider and decide the said preliminary objection at the first instance.

4. At this juncture, this Court finds it apposite to reproduce the bare provision of Section 34 of the A&C Act, as the same is necessary for the proper adjudication of the present case: “34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -

*****

(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.

….”

5. A plain reading of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act makes it abundantly clear that the period prescribed therein is mandatory and inflexible. An application for setting aside an arbitral award must be filed within three months from the date of receipt of the award, extendable by a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. The law in this regard has been succinctly reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 80 which reads as follows:

“10. Sections 34(2) and (2-A) then sets out the grounds on which an arbitral award may be set aside. Section 34(3), which again is material for decision of the question raised in this appeal, reads as follows:

“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.”

11. A reading of Section 34(1) would make it clear that an application made to set aside an award has to be in accordance with both sub-sections (2) and (3). This would mean that such application would not only have to be within the limitation period prescribed by sub-section (3), but would then have to set out grounds under sub-sections (2) and/or (2-A) for setting aside such award. What follows from this is that the application itself must be within time, and if not within a period of three months, must be accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, provided it is within a further period of 30 days, this Court having made it clear that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply and that any delay beyond 120 days cannot be cond