KARTAR SINGH CONTRACTOR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is against the order allowing for the limitation issue to be considered as a preliminary issue, when the contractor objected to the maintainability of the petition itself. Admittedly, the award was passed on 12.02.2013 and the petition was being instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act by the State only on 22.04.2014. The petition had been accompanied by an application under Section 5 to condone the delay of 342 days in filing the same. The court below framed an issue whether the award was liable to be set aside and whether the petition moved under Section 34 of the Act was time barred.

(2.) WHEN the objection was that the petition was barred by law, the Court was literally abdicating on its duty to render adjudication on the objection but allowed it to linger to be adjourned to a date on 16.01.2015.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents before the Court below challenges the order stating that Section 34(3) of the Act is self -contained in providing for a particular period of limitation and there is no scope for entertaining any application under Section 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that after all the issue of limitation has not been considered by the Court below and it could be left to the court below to consider the same at an appropriate time.