Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, permitting the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings before a court without jurisdiction; however, such exclusion is subject to the strict limitation windows stipulated under Section 34(3).

Virender Singh, Judge

Applicant-Er. Surinder Sharma has filed the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 21.08.2024, passed by the Himachal Pradesh Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Udyog Bhawan, Shimla, H.P., in case Reference No. 21 of 2024.

2. Since those objections have been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, as such, present application has been filed under Section 34(3) of the Act, seeking condonation of delay, which according to the applicant, is of about seven months, and, as per the report of the Registry, is of 11 months and five days.

3. The delay in filing the objections, under Section 34 of the Act, has been sought to be condoned on the ground that applicant has preferred CMPMO No. 735 of 2024 along with CMPMO No. 753 of 2024, against the order, dated 21.08.2024. Those CMPMOs have been disposed of by this Court by a common judgment, dated 01.07.2025, by holding that the remedy available to the applicant is by challenging the impugned orders, under Section 34 of the Act and the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As such, the delay in preferring the objections has been sought to be condoned. Application is duly supported by affidavit of Er. Surinder Sharma.

4. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has not opted to put appearance, whereas, respondent No. 2 has contested the application by filing the reply, on the ground that this Court cannot condone the said delay, as the same is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, under Section 34(3) of the Act. On the basis of above facts, the present application is also stated to be not maintainable.

5. In addition to this, a plea has been taken that the present objections, under Section 34 of the Act, are not maintainable and the order passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be assailed under Section 37 of the Act.

6. Prayer for condoning the delay has also been opposed on the ground that the applicant has not given day-to-day explanation of the delay. On the basis of the above facts, applicability of the application, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, has also been questioned by respondent No. 2.

7. On the basis of above facts, it has been argued by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 that even after giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Act to the applicant, the same does not fall under the outer limit, as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act. The reply is duly supported by the affidavit of Vice President (Corporate Affairs of respondent No. 2).

8. Applicant has filed the rejoinder, contesting the stand, as taken by respondent No. 2, in the reply and by reasserting the facts of the application.

9. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant Er. Surinder Sharma, has assailed the order passed by respondent No. 1, on 21.08.2024, by filing CMPMO No. 753 of 2024. As per the record, said petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has been filed on 17.12.2024, and the said petition along with CMPMO No. 735 of 2024 has been disposed of by this Court on 01.07.2025, by passing the following order:-

“11. Though, in Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation (supra) the issue of jurisdiction of this Court has been referred to the decision of larger bench but since the judgment in M/s India Glycols Ltd (supra) passed by a bench of equal strength subsists, this Court considers it appropriate to decide the issue against the petitioner taking into consideration the following observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State o