210 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4046-2015(O&M)

Date of Decision:26.08.2025 M/S PUNJAB RICE MILLS AND OTHERS ....Appellant(s)

Versus THE PUNJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDEERATION AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate, for the respondents.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed against order dated 24.02.2015 by which the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar and the case was remanded back to the learned Arbitrator.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants while giving the brief facts and dates submitted that the award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 25.03.2002 vide Annexure A-1. On 08.06.2002, the respondents filed objection petition under Section 34 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The aforesaid objection petition was filed with a delay of 74 days and therefore, it was within the period of limitation. However, the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 22.09.2004 returned the objection petition to the respondents for want of territorial jurisdiction to be presented before learned Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction at Amritsar. A certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 22.09.2004 was applied for and it was received by the respondents on 29.09.2004. Thereafter, the respondents filed a fresh objection petition under Section 34 of the Act, although initially it was filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 but it was converted to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by passing an order and this objection petition was filed on 09.12.2004. He submitted that in this way, the total time taken for filing the objection petition at the first instance before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh was 74 days. Thereafter, when it was returned by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 22.09.2004, the respondents consumed another 74 days for filing a fresh objection petition before the learned Court at Amritsar and this period of 74 days is calculated after excluding the date on which the objection petition was returned by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on 22.09.2004 and after excluding the time consumed for taking a certified copy of the aforesaid order of the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh which comes out to be 3 days and in this way, there was a delay of 74 days for filing a fresh objection petition before the learned Court at Amritsar.

3. He submitted that in this way the total period of delay comes out to be 148 days. He submitted that in this way there was a clear cut delay beyond the period of three months plus 30 days in filing objection petition. In this regard, he submitted that so far as the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not apply to Section 34 of the Act. However, so far as the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is concerned, the same is certainly applicable in view of the settled law but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, even after granting the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, still there was a delay of 28 day in filing the objection petition before the learned Court at Amritsar and therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar could not have further proceeded with the objection petition under Section 34 of the Act and decided the same being beyond the period of limitation. He further submitted that with regard to the aforesaid issue of application under Section 34 of the Act being filed beyond the period of limitat