SURESH Vs. SANDEEP KARTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred as Act) alongwith application for condonation of delay whereby the award dated 18.10.99 has been challenged. At the outset counsel for the respondent has taken the objections that the petition as well as the application for condonation of delay are bared by time as per averments of the petitioner. IN para 6 of the application the petitioner has categorically stated that he has received the signed copy. of the award only on 5th November 1999 . The award is dated 18.10.99. However, the verification has been signed on 27/04/2000. Sub section (3) of Section 34 of the Act provides that an application for setting aside the award may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33 from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. However, if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

(2.) In the application for condonation of delay the petitioner has averred that the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 7/03/2000 which according to him was within the statutory period of limitation. However, the application was put under defect and the time was given for representing the same after removing this defect. After removing the defect, the application was filed on 1/04/2000- Thus, according to the petitioner there is a delay of 27 days which was neither wilful nor intentional. According to the petitioner the delay occurred because his client was living in Madras and advocate's strike was going on . Even if one goes by as per claim of the petitioner , the petitioner received the signed copy of the award on 5/11/1999 and as per sub-Section (3) of Section 34 he was required to file the instant application for setting aside . the award by 5th November, 99. But instead it filed the application on 7/03/2000. The delay between 5/02/2000 and 7/03/2000 has remained unexplained. Even if the explanation of the petitioner is accepted that the delay beyond 7/03/2000 occurred due to the advocate's strike and the petitioner being the resident of Madras was not able to contact the counsel still the fact remains that the petitioner has not only failed to explain the delay from 5/02/2000 to 7/03/2000 but has also filed the delay application beyond the further grace period of 30 days.

(3.) In view of the mandatory nature of sub-Section (3) of Section 34, I find that the petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner has failed to explain the delay not only in filing the petition under Section 34 but also having filed the application through which the delay was explained beyond the further prescribed period of 30 days. Petition is dismissed. The petition and the application stand disposed off.