STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH PROJECT ENGINEER-CUM-EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL WORKS DIVISION PWD (B&R) Vs. VALECHA ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ANOTHER.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this appeal is whether the application to set aside the arbitration application to set aside the arbitration filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 beyond a period of 90 days from the date of the award or from the date when the Chief Engineer, who was the Head of the Department, was apprised about the award. The petitioner (appellant herein) sets out the reasons as to why immediately the petition could not be filed and I am prepared to believe that there are good enough reasons why he could not file immediately the petition within 90 days. To me, the issue is more fundamental as to whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act could be applied. Section 43 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reads as under: - -

(2.) ON first blush, it would seem that every provision of the Limitation Act that would allow for exclusion of time or for condonation of delay would apply. The Supreme Court however has held in M/s. Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Versus Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) and others - : AIR 2009 SC 396, while applying Section 43 that the time taken for diligently pursuing remedy in some other court could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, but Section 5 of the Act stands excluded. I am bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and, therefore, I hold that the application filed more than 3 months from the date when the Head of the Department admittedly had knowledge of the order after it was served could not be condoned.