FAO No. 5477 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5477 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 7.4.2011 Hakam Singh .. Appellant v. The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. H. S. Saggu, Advocate for the appellant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 30.4.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the objections to the award of the Arbitrator dated 29.3.2004 were dismissed inter-alia on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator, the appellant was arrested. He remained in jail from 27.1.2004 to 1.5.2004. During this period, he could not instruct his counsel to lead evidence in defence. On account of that, ex parte award was passed by the Arbitrator. The appeal also could not be filed in time, as the counsel did not inform the appellant about the status of the arbitration proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The arbitration proceedings commenced with the appointment of Arbitrator vide letter dated 30.5.2002. It is not in dispute that the appellant was represented by a counsel before the Arbitrator. He had even filed written statement. It is only that during the pendency of arbitration proceedings, the counsel pleaded no FAO No. 5477 of 2009 [2] instructions. Even if the appellant remained in jail from 27.1.2004 to 1.5.2004, still after release, he did not take any step to find out the status of the arbitration proceedings of which he was having knowledge, as the proceedings had commenced prior to the arrest of the appellant. The objections were filed in court only on 29.3.2005, i.e., one year after the date of award which were highly belated, as the limitation provided for filing the objections in terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is three months, which could be condoned only for a period of 30 days. However, the objections in the present case having been filed one year after the date of award, these were rightly dismissed by the learned court below on the ground of delay. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 7.4.2011 mk