VIPIN SANGHI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act) to set aside the majority award dated 1/2/2002 passed by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three members.

( 2 ) IN relation to a contract for supply of PIJF cables for Department of telecommunications (DOT) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), the parties had entered into an agreement by issuance of two purchase orders by the petitioner both dated 1. 6. 1988. Dispute arose between the parties since according to the petitioner, some of the supplies were defective while the respondent contended that supplies were good and were in fact utilised by the respondent.

( 3 ) THE matter was taken to arbitration consisting of three technical experts, namely, Mr. B. R. Nair (the Chairman of the Tribunal), Mr. T. Narayanamoorthy (the arbitrator nominated by the respondent) and Mr. Ranbir Khanna (the arbitrator nominated by the petitioner ). Two of the arbitrators, namely, Mr. B. R. Nair and T. Narayanamoorthy made and published their majority award on 1/2/2002. This award was not signed by the third arbitrator, namely, Sh. Ranbir Khanna. However, the reasons for not signing the award are contained in the award itself. In paragraph 6 of the award the majority arbitrators recorded that a draft award was prepared and circulated by the Secretariat and was discussed by the three Arbitrators on 12/11/2001. While the Presiding Arbitrator Mr. B. R. Nair and Mr. T. Narayanamoorthy were more or less in agreement, the third arbitrator, namely, Mr. Ranbir Khanna disagreed with them and expressed his desire to make a separate award.

( 4 ) THE minutes of the meeting held on 12/11/2001 were annexed to the award as Annexure E'. The majority arbitrators further record that the promised separate award has not been received by the Secretariat even after two months and, therefore, it was decided to publish the majority award. Again, in paragraph 16 of the majority award, it was recorded that Mr. Ranbir Khanna, Arbitrator had opined as of 12/11/2001 that no agreement could be reached on the award, therefore, he would make his award in due course of time. As of the making of the majority award, his award was still not available.

( 5 ) MR. RANBIR Khanna the arbitrator gave his minority decision on 18/9/2002. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the present petition on 16/12/2002 to challenge the majority award dated 1/2/2002.

( 6 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent that the objections to the award are barred by limitation and ought to be dismissed as such. The contention of the respondent is that since the majority award was made on 1/2/2002 and communicated to the parties on the same date, limitation for filing objections to the majority award started running against the petitioner in the beginning of February, 2002. Under Section 34 (3) of the act, for purposes of filing objections to the award, limitation is three months starting from the date on which the party making the application for setting aside the award received the arbitral award. Only upon sufficient cause being shown to the satisfaction of the Court, this period could be extended by atmost another 30 days but not thereafter. Respondent submits that since the petitioner was served with the majority award on 1/2/2002, in any event, the challenge thereto ought to have been raised by the petitioner before 30/6/2002, and not thereafter.

( 7 ) ON the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that unless all the arbitrators give their respective awards, it cannot be said that there is an arbitral award of the Tribunal. The award of the majority of arbitrators cannot be said' to be valid and enforceable. Consequently, only when the last of the awards/decisions is made and communicated, can it be said that the arbitral award of the Tribunal has come into being which is valid and enforceable. It is only t