1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 863 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 863 OF 2007 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 863 OF 2007 IN CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 106 OF 2006 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 106 OF 2006 M/s. Jain Brothers ... Appellant (Org. Petitioner) Versus The Pen Municipal Council, Through the Chief Officer, Pen. ... Respondent (Org. Respondent) Mr. Suresh Kumar, Advocate,for Mr. Rakesh K.Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.N.Bhadrashete, Advocate, for the respondent. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: 12th March,2008. DATE: 12th March,2008. DATE: 12th March,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant, who is the original petitioner, had taken some contract. As some differences arose between the appellant and the respondent-Municipal Council, the matter was referred to the arbitrator. On 28.4.2006, an award was passed and the copy of the award was received by the appellant on 30.4.2006. As per the said award, the appellant was to receive Rs.1,26,05,231/- from the respondent. The award could be challenged by either of the parties within three months in view of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the appellant filed a petition on 24.8.2006 challenging the said award. As there was a delay of 25 days in filing the petition, the petitioners also filed an application for condonation of delay. The application was opposed on the ground that there was no valid reason for the delay and, therefore, it should not be condoned. 3. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, Alibag, rejected the application for condonation of delay of 25 days. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 4. In para 3 of the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has given the following reasons for 3 the delay:- "The Petitioners state that though in the Award the Petitioners were not given the amount to which they were entitled, the Petitioners in order to put an end to the controversy, decided not to challenge the Award, because they were in dire need of money and wanted to use the money in other projects/business. The Petitioner was expecting that on the date of expiry of four months, he will get the awarded amount. The Petitioners state that however, on 3rd August 2006, when the Petitioners attended the Alibag Court in connection with Special Suit No.63/2006, the Advocate for Pen Council made a statement that they want to challenge the award. This statement was made by the Pen Municipal Council in connection with the suit No.63/2006. Thus, the Petitioners were forced to review their decision of the not challenging the award and in any event, when the Award is challenged by any of the parties, the same cannot be implemented and in those circumstances, the Petitioners have also decided to challenge the Award." On perusal of this, it becomes clear that as the appellant was in dire need of money and wanted to use 4 the money in other projects/business and he was expecting that within four months, he would receive the amount awarded to him from the Municipal Council, he had decided not to challenge the award so that the controversy could be put an end. However, on 3.8.2006, the appellant came to know that the respondent-Municipal Council was not in a mood to make the payment as per the award and had challenged the same in the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant also decided to challenge the said award. In fact, it will be in the interest of justice that both the parties should be heard fully and if the appellant had certain objections to the award, he should also be heard. It was rightly stated by petitioners that in any case the award could not be implemented as it was already challenged by the Municipal Council. In my considered opinion, the reasons given by the appellant in para 3 of the Application are quite satisfactory and the delay should have been condoned by the trial Court. 5. The provisions of Section 34 make it clear that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within a period of three months, it may entertain the application within further period of 30 days, but not thereafter. It means the delay of 30 days beyond the period of 3 months could be condoned. Taking into consideration the circumstances stated by the 5 applicant in para 3 of the application, I am satisfied that this is a good cause for delay, particularly when the respondent has also challenged the said award. Therefore, in my considered opinion, in the interest of justice, the application should have been allowed. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The delay of 25 days in filing the petition challenging the award is hereby condoned. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)