Arindam Sinha,J. - (1.) The Court-This arbitration petition for setting aside award carries in it prayer for condonation of delay. Mr. Tewari, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and raises preliminary objection to this petition being entertained by this Court, as out of time Mr. Joy Saha, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of petitioner and an order was recorded on 8th April, 2019, which is reproduced below :- "Mr.Saha, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner in this arbitration petition to set aside award. He submits, challenge to the award was filed within time prescribed but before a Court which rejected it on defect of jurisdiction. His client thereafter filed challenge in this Court but no delay. He submits, a question of law arises as to whether his client is entitled to condonation of such delay in view of the challenge having initially been filed within time prescribed. Mr.Tiwari, learned advocate appears on behalf of award holder and submits, position in law is settled by judgments of Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Company reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470, paragraphs 16 and 17 and Haryana State Cooperative Rs.& C Federation Ltd. Vs,. Unique Cooperative Rs.& C Cooperative Society Ltd. reported in (2018) 14 SCC 248, paragraphs 12 and 14. List on 24th April, 2019 under same heading."
(2.) Today Mr. Subhojit Saha, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and relies on judgement of Supreme Court in Ram Ujarey Vs. Union of India reported in (1999) 1 SCC 685. He relies on paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgement to submit, his client having had approached Court, though a wrong one, did so within time prescribed. Section 43 in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 makes applicable Limitation Act, 1963, as it applies to proceedings in Court. Proceedings in Court can give rise to plea for an order for exclusion of time in computing prescribed period of limitation, to be applied to the proceedings. He submits, in Ram Ujarey (supra) Supreme Court had condoned long delay in saying that it would be too much to drive out a poor employee (litigant) from Court, on ground of limitation. He submits, his client is in the same position as the litigant before Supreme Court as has been reduced to that by respondent.
(3.) Today, Mr. Tiwari submits, few dates are relevant. The award is dated 24th July, 2014. Accepting for the time being that copy of it was received by petitioner on 7th August, 2014, it will be true that petitioner challenged it within prescribed time but in a Court not competent to entertain it. Order of dismissal of the petition is dated 27th January, 2016. That is date on which petitioner is deemed to have had the petition, containing challenge to the award, returned to him. This arbitration petition challenging the award was thereafter filed on 19th August, 2016. There cannot be any time excluded between 27th January, 2016 and 19th August, 2016 on applying any provision in the Limitation Act. The period is in excess of three months and thirty days prescribed by sub-section (3) in section 34 of the 1996 Act. Hence, the arbitration petition can not be admitted for adjudication of purported challenge contained in it.;