Statutory time limits for filing objections under Arbitration Act are strict and must be adhered to; extensions are not granted without valid cause.

1. By way of instant application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay in filing the objections under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Arbitral Award dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. It is averred that a signed copy of award was received by the applicant / petitioner on 4th July, 2023. Immediately thereafter the copy of award was forwarded to the concerned department, however, during this period elections to State Legislature were announced and Code of Conduct was imposed. The senior officials of the department remained busy in election duties till 8th December, 2022. Thereafter, the process was undertaken for filing of objections and the same were finally filed before this Court on 7th January, 2023.

3. S.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , provides for limitation to file objections to the arbitral award within three months from the date of receipt of signed copy of award. It is further provided that in case the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the aforesaid period of three months, it may entertain the application within a further period of 30 days but not thereafter.

4. The above mandate of law is imperative and admits of no exception. Maximum period within which objections under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act can be filed is three months plus 30 days thereafter, in case allowed by the Court.

5. In the facts of the case, the period of three months as prescribed under sub-S.3 of S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act expired on 4th October, 2022. Even the period of 30 days, for which applicant could have been permitted by virtue of the proviso, as noticed above, expired on 4th November, 2022. Admittedly, during this period no application was filed seeking extension of period. In these circumstances, the prayer made in the application cannot be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the provisions of S.43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to contend that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the facts of the case. The argument so raised on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be rejected for the reason that the applicability of Limitation Act under S.43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been made to the arbitrations as it applies to the proceedings in the Court. Meaning thereby that the claims in the arbitration proceedings shall be governed by the same law of Limitation that applies to proceedings in normal suit. Even otherwise, this issue is no more res integra. In Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. 2001 (8) SCC 470 : (AIR 2001 SC 4010), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

"12. As far as the language of S.34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are "but not thereafter" used in the proviso of sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of S.29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of S.5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase "but not thereafter" wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify the result.

7. In result, there is no merit in the instant application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.