S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) SEEKING quashing of order dated 18.05.2013 in Arbitration Application No. 01 of 2011 and order dated 29.05.2014, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner -company was awarded work of erection of four steel gates in Gumani Barrage at Barhait and an agreement was executed between the parties on 04.03.2000. A dispute arose as to change in items and subsequent increase in value of work. The claimant was directed to execute a revised agreement which it refused to sign and finally, the contract was rescinded and the security deposit was forfeited. In compliance of order passed in Arbitration Petition No. 08 of 2007 the retired Engineer -in -Chief of Water Resources Department was constituted as the Arbitral Tribunal. An award dated 16.08.2010, which was corrected on 22.08.2010, was prepared and signed by the learned Arbitrator. The award was served upon the respondent -State of Jharkhand on 26.08.2010. An application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed on 14.02.2011. However, vide order dated 18.05.2013 the delay in filing the Arbitration Application No. 01 of 2011 was condoned, ex -parte and summon was issued to the claimant -petitioner herein. The claimant appeared and filed written statement on 26.09.2013 and it also filed reply to application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on 26.09.2013 itself. Another application dated 09.01.2014 under Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the claimant seeking recall of order dated 18.05.2013 however, vide order dated 29.05.2014 the application seeking recall of order dated 18.05.2013 has been dismissed. Constrained, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in view of provision under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996, the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to arbitration matters covered under 1996 Act however, except as expressly provided for under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is submitted that, the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 could have been extended only by a period of thirty days by the Court under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act and no application under Section 34 challenging the award can be entertained by the Court beyond the period of limitation prescribed there -under.
(3.) PER contra, Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned S.C. (L&C) for the respondent -State of Jharkhand submits that, order dated 18.05.2013 by which the delay in filing the Arbitration Application was condoned has not been challenged by the petitioner by approaching this Court. It is further submitted that, the trial court entertaining an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has no power to recall its own order and therefore, application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of order dated 18.05.2013 has rightly been dismissed vide order dated 29.05.2014.;