- (1.) THE appellant State of Rajasthan has laid this appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (For short referred to as the Act of 1996) against the impugned order dated 23.5.2013, passed by the learned District Judge, Hanumangarh, whereby the application of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was rejected.
(2.) THE appellant preferred an application before the learned District Judge under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the an arbitral award. The application was submitted after a lapse of six months, and therefore, the appellant State made an endavour for condonation of delay by submitting an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court below after examining Section 34 (3) and the proviso attached with the said sub section rejected the application by concluding that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable and the Court is not empowered to extend the period of limitation beyond four months. The learned Additional Government Counsel has argued that the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable in arbitral proceedings by virtue of Section 37 of the Act of 1996 and, as such, Section 5 can be applied even for an application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
(3.) MR . Purohit has strenuously urged that the learned Court Below has not examined the provisions of Section 34 in right perspective and, as such, rejection of the application for condonation of delay is not sustainable.;