In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 105 of 2008 Date of decision: July 30, 2008 State of Haryana ... Appellant versus Satish Bhatia and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) C.M. No. 14202-CII of 2008 is allowed. Reply is taken on record. This application as well as the main appeal are being disposed of on merits with the consent of both the parties. The award in this case was passed on 21.1.2006, which was received in the office of the appellant on 27.1.2006. It has been stated by Mr. Deepak Jindal, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, that review petition was filed against the award before the Arbitrator on 17.2.2006 which was decided on 26.3.2006. The copy of the order was received in the office on 30.3.2006, therefore, after excluding the period during which the review petition remained pending before the Arbitrator, the appeal having been filed on 18.6.2006 is within limitation. To the contrary, it has been urged that the period of limitation in the ordinary course for filing the award was to expire on 27.4.2006 and it could be relaxed only to another one month i.e. up to 27.5.2006. As per Sub-clause III of Section 30 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 no further period beyond 30 days could be extended for filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this period from 17.2.2006 to 30.3.2006 is liable to be excluded as per provisions of Section FAO No. 105 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Heard. Filing of the review application could not stop the period of limitation when it had already began and the case of the appellant could not be covered under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the appellant fully knew that the limitation has already began to run and no period of limitation could be extended beyond 27.5.2006 as per provisions of Sub-section (iii) of Section 30 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant also could not be extended benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act as the sine quo non for getting benefit was to file the legal proceedings bonafide and in good faith, but in the instant case the appellant did not opt for any such legal proceedings before a competent authority but he opted for filing a review petition which was an independent remedy. Even otherwise, the grounds set up by the plaintiff for challenging the impugned order are that the contractor could not be made payment for the reason that he had committed delay in completion of the work which was lastly extended by the appellant to 30.6.2001. Again the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to furnish any date as to when the work was completed by the Contractor. Under the circumstances, no grounds to stay the impugned award are made out. Therefore, the application as well as the appeal are dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to make payment to the contractor along with interest within fortnight on furnishing adequate surety to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge, Karnal. July 11, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge