P. P . Naolekar, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The Southern Railway entered into a contract with respondent No. 1 for gauge conversion from Madras Beach to Trichchirappalli Villupuram Section - construction of a bridge being agreement No. 136/Cn/95, dated 29-9-95. On behalf of the Southern Railway, the contract was signed by the then Chief Project Manager, presently, the Chief Engineer. Disputes arose touching the claims arising out of the execution of works under the contract and in exercise of the power conferred by the arbitration clause contained in the contract, the General Manager, Southern Railway appointed an arbitrator as also a Presiding Arbitrator, while respondent No. 1 nominated its arbitrator. The arbitral tribunal so constituted gave its award on 10/11-03-2001 and signed the same. A copy of the award was delivered in the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway on 12-3-2001. The receipt seems to have been acknowledged by someone in the office, probably the inwards clerk. The Chief Engineer received the copy of the award from the Tribunal on 19-3-2001.
(3.) On 10-7-2001, the Chief Engineer presented an application for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter the Act for short). An application seeking condonation of delay under sub-section (3) of Section 34 was also filed. The delay sought to be condoned was of 27 days only based on an assumption that the copy of the award was received on 19-3-2001. The application for condonation of delay was contested by respondent No. 1 on the ground that arbitral award was delivered on 12-3-2001 and calculated from that date there was a delay of 34 days in filing the application beyond the period of limitation prescribed by sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act while the proviso appended to the said provision does not permit any delay beyond the period of 30 days being condoned by the Court. The objection raised by respondent No. 1 has found favour with the learned single Judge of the High Court, who rejected the application holding it as barred by limitation. The decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by special leave.;