Pratap Krishna Lohra, J. - (1.) APPALLED by the impugned order dated 29th October, 2014, whereby learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan has rejected petition of the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short, 'Act of 1996'), appellant has laid this appeal under Section 37 of the Act of 1996.
(2.) BY the order impugned, the learned Court below after considering the petition of the appellant under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has opined that objections against the arbitral award dated 18th November, 2013 are barred by limitation and consequently declined to interfere with the same. The facts in brevity, giving rise to this appeal, are that appellant's claim for security deposits, commission and damages did not find favour from the sole arbitrator, Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur, and by its arbitral award dated 18th November, 2013 entire claim of the appellant is rejected.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by rejection of its claim, appellant approached the learned Court below under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside arbitral award. Along with the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, appellant also preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The learned Court below, after examining the matter, found that petition/objections under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 are laid belatedly inasmuch as even after 90 days from the date of receipt of the arbitral award, petition is laid with inordinate delay of six months and ten days. It is in these circumstances, while holding that by virtue of sub -section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, learned Court below turned down the request of the appellant for setting aside arbitral award.;