1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2009 M/s. Vishwas Developers. ... Appellant. V/s. Dr. Nandkumar Shankar Gaikwad. ... Respondent. Mr. V.P. Patil and Pankaj Das for the Appellant. Mr. S.V. Gavand for Respondent 1. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 19TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- The learned Principal District Judge, Raigad by his order dated 20th November 2008 dismissed the Appellant's Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore, this Appeal. The Appellant - Original Applicant assailed an Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 17th October 2006. The said Award was corrected on 20th October 2006. However, instead of approaching the District Court to challenge the Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Appellant filed an Arbitration Appeal being Arbitration Appeal No. 5 of 2007 in this Court. When the Court noticed that the 2 Appeal was not maintainable and invited the attention of the Appellant to the same, he withdrew the said Appeal with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings to challenge the Award. It is, thereafter, that the Award was challenged. However, the Court below upon noticing Section 34 and more particularly, sub-Sections 2 and 3 thereof concluded that the period to challenge Award prescribed by law (three months) is over on 20th January 2007. The further period that could be condoned is only 30 days and that is till 20th February 2007. The Petition to challenge the Award is filed on 4th June 2007. In these circumstances, it was hopelessly time barred and could not have been entertained. Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing in support of this Appeal urged that when this Court allowed the Petitioner/Appellant to withdraw the Appeal filed erroneously, then, the period spent in prosecuting the said Appeal should be excluded while computing the period of limitation to challenge the Award. He places reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006(6) BCR 119 (State of Goa v/s. Western Builders). It is not possible to accept this contention of Mr. Patil for more than one reason. It is not the case of the Appellant that the Appeal before this Court was filed within the period prescribed by Section 34. Admittedly, there is nothing in the Supreme Court's decision 3 which would enable me to ignore Section 34 and more particularly, sub-Sections 2 and 3 thereof. Further, even before the Court below, it was not the case of the Petitioner that the Appeal was filed within time prescribed by Section 34 to challenge an Award and its withdrawal only was permitted later on and therefore, if it is instituted within time, the benefit of Section 14 should have been given to the Petitioner - Appellant. If that was not the case before the Court below, then, simplicitor withdrawal of the Appeal with liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings would not be of any assistance in condoning the period of limitation. More so, when no application for condonation of delay was filed by the Appellant. The Principal District Judge committed no error in holding that the Petition to challenge the Award was barred by limitation. Since that was the only ground pressed before me and I am concurring with the view taken by the Principal District Judge, Alibag, there is no alternative but to dismiss this Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.