STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATISH BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award dated 10.12.2001 that stood corrected on 21.08.2002 was dismissed. The application under Section 34 had been filed on 18.10.2002, that is, more than four months from the date when the original award was made but within a period of four months from the date when the correction of award was made.

(2.) The Lower Court, which dismissed the application rejecting the plea for condonation of delay, was on the basis that the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provided for a specific period of limitation and when the extension of the period could be made to the extent to which the said Act made provision and there was no scope for applicability of the Limitation Act. The Court below relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. M/s Popular Construction Company AIR 2001 SC 4010 that the limitation started only from the date of the original award and Section 5 could not be invoked for condonation of delay.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State, Sh. Sharma contends that when the award was passed on 10.12.2001, it contained an error with reference to the amount of security deposit as Rs.1,75,000/- when it should have stated only Rs.1,65,000/-. An application for correction was made on 09.07.2002 and it was allowed on consent of the other side. The awad was consequently corrected by order dated 21.08.2002. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that after the award was corrected on 21.08.2002 and that too, a consent without any objection emanating from the respondent, that the application for correction was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 33, was immaterial and the respondent could not raise the issue of limitation after the award was corrected. According to him Section 34(3) that deals with an extension for the period of limitation must be considered only in the context when a request for correction was made and when it was allowed. Section 34(3) with its proviso reads as follows:-