Himachal Pradesh High Court
__________________________________________________________ vs Bindra Devi on 14 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESHAT
SHIMLA
OMP(M) No.38 of 2024 in
Arbitration Appeal No.116 of 2024
Decided on: 14th November, 2024
__________________________________________________________
National Highway Authority of India ...Appellant
Versus
Bindra Devi ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting? No
For the petitioner: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge(Oral)
This application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is for condoning the delay of 217 days
in filing the arbitration appeal under Section 37 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short
'the Act') against the judgment dated 14.07.2023
passed by the learned District Judge in Arbitration
Petition No.36 of 2023 (National Highways Authority
of India Versus Bindra Devi).
2. The reason for the delay assigned in the
application is that the applicant became aware about
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
the passing of the impugned judgment only on
21.03.2024. This cannot be considered cogent reason
sufficient for condoning the delay as the applicant
was duly represented by its counsel before the
learned Court below.
3. A perusal of the impugned decision dated
14.07.2023 reveals that in terms of the said decision,
the application moved by the present applicant
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the
delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the
Act, was dismissed on the ground that the delay
beyond 120 days cannot be condoned.
It is well settled that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has no application to an application
challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of
the Act. Under Section 34(3) of the Act, an application
for setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned
in Section 34(3) of the Act can be made within three
months and the period can only be extended for a
further period of thirty days on showing sufficient
cause and not thereafter. The use of the words
"but not thereafter" in the proviso to Section 34
makes it clear that extension cannot be beyond
thirty days (Ref.: Simplex Infrastructure Limited
Versus Union of India).
In the instant case, there was a delay of
217 days in moving the application under Section 34
of the Act by the present applicant. Learned District
Judge, therefore, did not err in holding that a delay
beyond 120 days in moving the application under
Section 34 of the Act could not be condoned.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent, places
reliance on the orders dated 01.07.2024, passed by
Coordinate Bench of this Court, in OMP(M) No.39 of
2024 titled as NHAI vs Bhajnu a/w Arbitration
Appeal No.74 of 2024, whereby, the application
seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal and
the arbitration appeal, in the following terms :-
"4 A perusal of the impugned decision
dated 14.07.2023 reveals that in terms of
the said decision, the application moved by
the present applicant under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act for condoning the delay
in filing the application under Section 34 of
the Act, was dismissed on the ground that
the delay beyond 120 days cannot be
condoned.
It is well settled that Section 5 of the
Limitation Act has no application to an
application challenging an arbitral award
under Section 34 of the Act. Under
Section 34(3) of the Act, an application
for setting aside the award on the
grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of
the Act can be made within three
months and the period can only be
extended for a further period of thirty
days on showing sufficient cause and
not thereafter. The use of the words
"but not thereafter" in the proviso to
Section 34 makes it clear that extension
cannot be beyond thirty days (Ref.:
Simplex Infrastructure Limited Versus
Union of India).
In the instant case, there was a
delay of 149 days in moving the application
under Section 34 of the Act by the present
applicant. Learned District Judge,
therefore, did not err in holding that a
delay beyond 120 days in moving the
application under Section 34 of the Act
could not be condoned.
5. In view of above, there is no merit
in this application. The same is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the main
arbitration appeal is also dismissed along
with pending miscellaneous application(s),
if any."
5. In view of above, there is no merit
in this application. The same is accordingly
dismissed. Consequently, the main arbitration
appeal is also dismissed, alongwith pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
November 14, 2024
(Chiranjeev)
