The court reaffirmed that the limitation period under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act cannot be extended beyond 30 days post-expiry of the prescribed duration.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. By consent of parties, these notices of motion which are for condonation of delay of various periods in filing the arbitration petitions under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 were heard together and are disposed off by a common order.

2. According to the applicant, there was delay of about 29 days in filing Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017.

3. According to the applicant, there is delay of more than 30 days beyond the period of three months in the other arbitration petitions.

4. The admitted fact is that the impugned arbitral award was rendered by the learned arbitrator on 3rd August, 2017. In paragraph 18 of the affidavit in support of the notice of motion, it is averred by the applicant that the learned arbitrator telephonically called Shri T.K. Joseph, Divisional Engineer, OFC Project Division, Mumbai and informed that the award was ready and requested to send somebody for collecting the award. An officer from the office of Divisional Engineer,OFC Project Division, Mumbai went to the learned arbitrator’s office and the learned arbitrator handed over the award of all the nine cases to him. The copies of the award was collected on 3rd August, 2017 by the said office bearer of the Divisional Engineer.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the documents i.e. internal notings of the applicant annexed at Exhibit “A” to the affidavit in rejoinder and would submit that the copy of the award was produced before the Chief General manager only on 10th August, 2017 who was the respondent in the arbitral proceedings. He thereafter obtained an opinion from the advocates appearing for the applicant before the learned arbitrator and after obtaining such opinion, lodged the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017 on 7th December, 2017. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that since the Chief General Manager was the respondent in the arbitral proceedings, copy of the award served upon the staff member of the applicant on 3rd August, 2017 would not commence the period of limitation prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. She submits that in the Arbitration Petition (Lodging) Nos.1025 of 2017, 1026 of 2017 and 1027 of 2017 since the copy of the award was received by the office of the Chief General Manager only on 10th August, 2017, the period of limitation would commence from 11th August, 2017 and not from 3rd August, 2017. M/s. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr. and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors which judgment was adverted to by the Supreme Court in the judgment in case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (supra) delivered on 26th July, 2010 in Civil Appeal No.5998 of 2010.

6. Mr.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the documents annexed at Exhibit “A” to the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the applicant itself would indicate that Shri T.K. Joseph, DET, OFC (P) and Shri A.S. Sundaram DET Panjim were authorized on behalf of CGM WTP to represent the case before the learned arbitrator. Both the officers were all through out present in the arbitral proceedings in which the learned arbitrator observed that the representative of the Chief General Manager has not only attended the proceedings but also filed various pleadings before the learned arbitrator including the counter claim and the written statement.

7. Learn