[F.A.O. (OS) No.318/2009] Page No.1 of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 4th August, 2009 + F.A.O. (OS) NO.318 OF 2009 & C.M. NOS.10419-10420 OF 2009 UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocate. versus AKASH BUILDERS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL 1. Whether Reporters of the local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? [NO] 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? [NO] 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [NO] J U D G M E N T MUKUL MUDGAL, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal challenges the impugned judgment passed by this court on 4th May, 2009 in O.M.P. No.236 of 2008. 2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed by the appellant/UOI noted a fact that the petition was filed 76 days after expiry of the 90 days period as provided under Section 34 sub-Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is not in dispute that the said period is also beyond the additional period of 30 days, which may be available under Section 34 (3) proviso. [F.A.O. (OS) No.318/2009] Page No.2 of 2 3. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Of India Vs. Popular Construction Company; 2001 (8) SCC 460. The objections have been preferred beyond the prescribed period under the Act. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of. MUKUL MUDGAL [JUDGE] NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL [JUDGE] AUGUST 04, 2009 ‘AA’