- (1.) IN pursuance of the order of remand by the Supreme Court, the matter has come before this Court to consider the main point urged in this appeal.
(2.) THE counsel for the appellant would submit that the order passed by the Sub judge refusing to set aside the arbitral award was mainly on the ground that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation and since Section 5 of the Limitation Act would confer powers on Sub Judge to condone the delay, the Sub Judge ought to have exercised that power, entertained the application and set aside the order.
(3.) ARGUING contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the strength of the decision in the case of State of Goa v. Western Builders reported in (2006) 6 SCC 239 : (AIR 2006 SC 2525), would submit that section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply in respect of the application under section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter called as Act ). It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that under Section 34 (3) of the Act, an application for setting aside arbitral award shall be filed only within three months from the date of receipt of the arbitral award and if any request has been made under Section 33 of the Act showing sufficient cause, that request can be entertained within a further period of thirty days but not thereafter.;