wp7260.09 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7260 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5084 OF 2011 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.8654 OF 2011 The Municipal Council, Purna, Tq. Purna, District Parbhani Through its Chief Officer ...Petitioner Versus Abdul Rauf s/o Abdul Shakur Age 72 years, Occ. Contractor R/o. Gadipura, Near Shahi Masjid, Motha Maroti Mandir, Parbhani Tq. and District Parbhani ...Respondent ..... Mr. S.N. Rodge, advocate for the petitioner Mr. J.N. Singh, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2011 JUDGMENT:- 1 The petitioner allotted the work of construction of shopping complex on site No.5 of Municipal Council, Purna to the present respondent. The dispute/difference arose in respect of the said work. The matter was referred for arbitration to the sole Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as “the said Act”). The Arbitrator passed an award wp7260.09 -2- on 22.3.2008. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the said Act before the District Judge, Parbhani. Alongwith the same, the petitioner also moved an application for condonation of delay in filing the said proceeding. The learned Principal District Judge, Parbhani vide his order dated 26.8.2009 rejected the said application for condonation of delay. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2 Shri Rodge, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Principal District Judge has not at all considered the grounds for condonation of delay and has rejected the application in a very casual manner. The Principal District Judge was required to consider the grounds put forth for condonation of delay. Sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of the said Act has not been properly construed by the District Judge. According to the learned counsel, the Court has got powers to condone the delay. The learned counsel further contends that the copy of the award was received on 5.4.2008 by the Office Superintendent and not by the Chief Officer. It was received by the Chief Officer much subsequently i.e. on 9.9.2008. As such there was delay of only six days. The Court could have condoned the said delay. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. M/s Ark Builders Pvt. Limited, reported in AIR 2011 SC 1374. wp7260.09 -3- 3 Per contra, Shri J.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the copy of award was received by the office of the petitioner on 5.4.2008 and the limitation started running since then. It was served on the Office Superintendent of the petitioner on 5.4.2008 and thereafter the petition was filed in December, 2008. The court has no power to condone the delay after 120 days. The learned counsel relies on the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary, (Irrigation Department) & others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4182 and Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co. reported in (2001) 8 SCC 470 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation vs. M/s. Namdhari Engineering Constructions Company (Writ petition No. 6604 of 2008 decided on 07.07.2011). 4 The undisputed fact, as can be culled out from the record is that the award was passed by the sole Arbitrator on 22.3.2008. The same was served on the petitioner on 5.4.2008. On the said date, even an endorsement was made by the Chief Officer on the covering letter of the award to the Office Superintendent for taking appropriate steps in the matter and application under Section 34 of the said Act was filed on 8.12.2008. wp7260.09 -4- 5 The issue that the court has no power to condone the delay after 120 days is no longer res-integra in view of the judgment of Apex court in the case of M/s. Consolidated Engineering Enterprises and in the case of Union of India (referred supra). 6 In view of the undisputed facts and the dates, as narrated above, it can safely be said that the copy of the award was served on the petitioner on 5.4.2008 and the application under Section 34 of the said Act was filed after eight months. The same was barred by limitation and therefore, no error is committed by the Principal District Judge in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 7 In the light of the above, writ petition, as such, is dismissed. However, with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. 8 In view of dismissal of writ petition, civil application No.5084 of 2011 seeking condonation of delay in filing review application as well as the review application do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly. *****