STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. CHAKRABORTY & COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The affidavit of the petitioner is filed in Court today and taken on record. The Costs, as directed by the order dated 9th January, 2020, have been paid within time by the petitioner to the concerned entity.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent objects to the maintainability of the application under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, on the ground that the petition should be dismissed for not having been filed within the timeline mandated under Section 34(3) of the Act. Learned counsel cites Assam Urban Water Supply And Sewerage Board vs. Subash Projects And Marketing Limited reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 624 for the proposition that the petitioner cannot make use of the intervening vacation for the timelines under Section 34(3) of the Act. Counsel submits that the three months expired before the puja vacation of the court in 2011 and the additional period of thirty days expired during the puja vacation. The application was only filed after the Court reopened in November 2011. Counsel relies on Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1963 which makes a concession for the time prescribed for filing a suit, appeal or application when the prescribed period expires of a day when the Court is closed with an Explanation that a Court shall be deemed to be closed on any day within this section if, during any part of the normal working hours the Court remains closed on a specific day. Learned counsel further places two orders dated 11th November, 2011 by which the delay in applying under Section 34 was condoned and an order of 2nd January, 2019 by which, according to Counsel, the respondent was given liberty to take objection to the maintainability of the petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the first order dated 11th November, 2011 wherein the delay in filing the Section 34 was condoned and submits that issue cannot now be reopened.