AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The only point raised in this appeal is whether the application to set aside the arbitration application to set aside the arbitration filed u/s 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:--
Limitations.--
(1) The Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court.
(2) ...............
(3) ...............
(4) ...............
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 Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and Others, , while applying Section 43 that the time taken for diligently pursuing remedy in some other court could be excluded u/s 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.
The counsel for the appellant cites before me the judgments in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, and Union of India Vs. M/s Popular Construction Co., but in none of the decisions, direct consideration of Section 43 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 5 of Limitation Act was considered. The appeal is incompetent and it is dismissed as such.