IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 25 of 2024 in Arb. Case No. 851 of 2024 Decided on: 22nd November, 2024.

_________________________________________________________________

Engineer-in-Chief & Ors. ....Applicants/Objectors Versus Dev Raj …Respondent _________________________________________________________________

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, lWhether approved for reporting?

_________________________________________________________________

For the applicants: Mr.Y. P. S. Dhaulta and Mr. L. N.

Sharma, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Sikandar Bhushan and Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocates General.

For the respondent: Mr. Suneet Goel, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi and Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Gist of the point involved in the lis is, in case the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act in short) are preferred beyond l Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes three months-the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act, but within the extendable period of thirty days in terms of proviso thereto, whether the objector is required to explain ‘sufficient cause’ for the entire period from the date of receipt of the award till the date of filing of the objections or only for the period beyond three months up to the date of filing of the objections.

Award was passed on 06.11.2023 in favour of the non-applicant/respondent by the learned Sole Arbitrator. The State of Himachal Pradesh, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, has preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. These objections have been preferred twenty-four days beyond the period of three months prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. Hence, this application has been moved for condoning the delay in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Act.

2. Facts and Submissions

2(i). Factual position relevant for the purpose of adjudicating this application is not in dispute: -

 Award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on

06.11.2023.

 Signed copy of the award was received by the applicants/objectors on 07.11.2023 itself.

 Three months’ period available under Section 34 (3) of the Act for preferring objections against the award lapsed on 07.02.2024. The objections were preferred on 02.03.2024 i.e. on 114th day from the date of passing of the award or in other words 24th day after the expiry of three months’ period from the date of receipt of the award.

2(ii). The applicants/objectors have pleaded following factual reasons for condoning the delay in filing the objections: -

2(ii)(a) After receipt of the signed copy of the award on 07.11.2023, applicant No.3, Executive Engineer, Rohru Division, HPPWD Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., vide his letter dated 29.01.2024, submitted a copy of the award to the office of the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla or further necessary action.

2(ii)(b) The matter was examined in the legal cell of the Engineer-in-Chief, whereafter it was submitted to the State Government on 31.01.2024.

2(ii)(c) The matter was examined at the Government level in consultation with Law Department. The opinion of Law Department was conveyed by the applicant No.1-State of HP through Principal Secretary (Public Works) on 21.02.2024.

2(ii)(d) The Engineer-in-Chief HPPWD, Shimla conveyed the decision of the State to applicant No.2 on 22.02.2024.

2(ii)(f) Applicant No.2, thereafter took steps for preparing and drafting the objections. The same were prepared and filed on 02.03.2024.

In view of above, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the delay in filing the objections was neither intentional nor willful but had taken place for the reasons beyond the control of the applicants/objectors.

Prayer was made for condoning the delay.

2(iii). The non-applicant/respondent, in its reply to the application, took a pertinent objection that no justifiable cause has been assigned by t