BELA M.TRIVEDI,J. - (1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-State of Rajasthan under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to be as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur ((hereinafter referred to be as 'the Court below') in arbitration case No.45/2008, whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the appellant seeking condonation of delay as well as the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act against the award dated 23.09.2006 passed by Sole Arbitrator.
(2.) In this case, it appears that an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent being No.76 of 1995-1996 in respect of the work of renewal by 5.50 Meters and 20 MM B.T. with paver finisher on various roads under PWD District Division North Jaipur. However, certain disputes, having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to the Sole Arbitrator, who after hearing the parties, passed the award on 23.09.2006. The said award was challenged by the appellant by filing objections under Section 34 of the Act on 7.7.2007. However, the said objections having been filed after the prescribed time limit, the appellant had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said application along with the objections have been dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order dated 21.12.2012.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Rajasthan has submitted that due to the procedural delay in the department, some delay had occurred in filing the objections which should have been condoned by the court below in the interest of justice. The said submission of learned counsel Dr. Khangarot cannot be accepted in view of the specific time limit prescribed in Section 34(3) of the said Act, for challenging the award. The position of law as regards nonapplicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 34(3) of the said Act, has also been well settled by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. To cite a few are in case of UOI v. Popular Construction Co.-2001(8) SCC 470; in case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers and anr.- 2010(12) SCC 210 etc. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below.;