1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4658 OF 2008 (Godavari Marathwada Irrigation vs. M/s. R.B. Kurhade & Company ) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4661 OF 2008 (Godavari Marathwada Irrigation vs. M/s. R.B. Kurhade & Company ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 01, 2008. Heard Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. The contention of Shri Sambre, learned counsel is that till this date, the application for condonation of delay in filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has not been rejected and therefore, the application under Section 34 of the Act is still pending. According to Shri Singh, learned counsel, the proceedings are filed beyond limitation and there was never earlier any challenge to award before any forum and hence it cannot be said that earlier proceedings were deligently prosecuted. He, therefore, states that Section 14 of Indian Limitation 2 Act, has no application. He further points out that the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, if filed, are not before the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. According to him, therefore, there are no proceedings under Section 34 of the Act at all in the eye of law and hence the very basis of present writ petition is not existing. Shri Sambre, learned counsel has pointed out that as per opinion received by the petitioners, they have filed the application under Section 34 of the Act before the Court of District Judge-1, Pusad as the powers of Principal District Judge at Yavatmal are conferred upon that officer for Pusad. I do not find it necessary to go into that controversy at this stage. The proceedings styled as proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are filed by present petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that there is no prayer for condonation of delay in said matter and Shri Sambre, learned counsel states that such a prayer is already there. In these circumstances, I find that the question whether there is any delay in filing those proceedings or then whether delay has been appropriately explained, needs to be gone into by the Courts before which the proceedings are filed. The said Court to consider not only the issue of 3 limitation but also the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability of application. In that view of the matter, I permit District Judge-1, Pusad, to decide the application/ prayer pending before him as early as possible and in any case by 15.12.2008. The parties to appear before that forum on 6.12.2008. It is made clear that this Court has not observed anything on merit and writ petition is being disposed of only because of pendency of proceedings before the lower Court. The interim orders granted by this Court shall continue till 15.12.2008 and thereafter the parties shall abide by further directions by the said Court. Shri Singh, learned counsel has during the arguments made request to permit the respondent to withdraw at least part of the amount to which it is entitled. However, I find that the proceedings are pending before this Court since 15.10.2008 and the situation will become clear within two weeks and hence I have not granted that request. With the directions as mentioned above to the District Judge – 1, Pusad, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be furnished to both the parties to act upon. JUDGE *GS.