Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Saboo Minerals Pvt. Ltd.
2003 Latest Caselaw 715 Del

JUDGMENT

S.K. Mahajan, J.

1. ADMIT.

2. On a reference being made to the Arbitrator, the award was made on 17.4.2000. The award was admittedly received by the appellant on 20.4.2000. The appellants moved an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (in short referred to as the "Act" ) before the arbitrator for correction of the award, on 19th July, 2000. Notice of this application was issued by the Arbitrator to the respondents. On being pointed out by the respondents that an application under Section 33 of the Act could be filed only within 30 days, the Arbitrator dismissed the application on 15.9.2000. Objections to the award under Section 34 of the Act were thereafter filed by the appellants on 27.11.2000. Since under Section 34 of the Act, objections could be filed within three months of the date of receipt of the award by the party and if the party is prevented by sufficient cause from making an application within the period of three months, the Court could entertain the application within a further period of 30 days, the objections were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the same were clearly barred by time and the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the objections after 30 days of the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the award by the parties. This order has now been challenged by the appellant in this Court.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that time for filing objections under Section 34(3) of the Act would not start till such time the application under Section 33 of the Act was pending before the arbitral Tribunal and time will start only from the date the request made under Section 33 of the Act is disposed of by the arbitral Tribunal. It is submitted that as the application under Section 34 of the Act was within time calculating the same from the date of rejection of the application under Section 33 of the Act, the appellant could not be dismissed by the Arbitrator only on the ground of limitation.

4. To exclude the time taken in pursuing the application under Section 33 of the Act, the application filed under Section 33 has to be within the period prescribed in the Act. In a case where an application under Section 33 of the Act has been filed say after a period of six months from the date of receipt of the award by the party, it cannot be said that the time for filing objections under Section 34 of the Act would start from the date of rejection of such an application. If this contention is accepted, any party with a view to circumvent the limitation provided in Section 34 of the Act would make an application before the Arbitrator under Section 33 of the Act and wait for his decision and file objections after disposal of such an application, which was not even maintainable because of the same having been filed beyond the time prescribed in Section 33 of the Act. I am, therefore, not impressed with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the limitation would start from the date of rejection of the application under Section 33 by the Arbitrator. If the application under Section 33 had been filed within time, no doubt, the appellant would have been entitled to the exclusion of time taken in pursuing the said application but as the application under Section 33 of the Act itself was barred by time, in my opinion, the appellant cannot take advantage of Section 34(3) of the Act so as to start limitation from the date of rejection of such an application.

5. The objections under Section 34 of the Act being beyond time were rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. I find no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court. There are no merits in the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.