T.P.S. Mann, J. - (1.) AWARD rendered by the Arbitrator was sent to the appellants on 3.7.2006. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the award in question could have been filed within a period of three months or within a further period of thirty days and not thereafter, as specified under Section 34(3) of the Act. Instead of filing the application within the prescribed period of limitation i.e. three months or within a further period of thirty days, the application was filed by the appellants only on 19.9.2007. Under a wrong notion, the appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for the condonation of delay in filing the application, but the same was not maintainable in view of various judgments reported as Union of India v. : AIR2001SC4010 ; Union of India v. Som Dutt Gargi, 2003 (4) R.C.R.173 and Shiv Shakti Rice Mills v. .
(2.) BEFORE learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad where the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed, the appellants placed reliance upon Union of India v. : AIR2005SC1832 to contend that delay can be condoned even in respect of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act. In the said case, there was a delay of only 27 days and for that reason, it seems that the court was inclined to condone the delay. In the case in hand, delay was of 350 days in filing of the application under Section 34 of the Act. Under these circumstances learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and proceeding to dismiss the objections being time barred. No ground for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed;