C. R. No. 6307 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6307 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 28, 2010 Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula .... Petitioner Vs. M/s Jivans Marketing and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for respondent no.1. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Haryana Warehousing Corporation, assailing order dated 17.07.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula, thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 14 days in filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short – the Act) and also thereby consequently dismissing the main application under Section 34 of the Act as time barred. Respondent no.2 Arbitrator made Award dated 28.11.2007 against which the petitioner filed application under Section 34 of the Act. The petitioner also moved application Annexure P-1 for condonation of C. R. No. 6307 of 2009 2 delay in filing the main application under Section 34 of the Act, alleging that the matter was referred to legal branch of the petitioner Corporation and therefore, some delay occurred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to Section 34 of the Act, application thereunder for setting aside an Arbitration Award can be moved within three months after the receipt of the arbitral Award provided that if the Court is satisfied, application may be entertained within a further period of 30 days. In the instant case, the Award is dated 28.11.2007 and application under Section 34 of the Act was moved by the petitioner on 14.03.2008. The said application could have been moved up to 28.02.2008 i.e. within three months and thus, there was delay of 14 days in filing the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact, the Award was received by Corporation in the month of January 2008 and the period of three months commenced therefrom and application filed under Section 34 of the Act was within limitation. However, this plea cannot be accepted because no such plea was taken either in the application Annexure P-1 for condonation of delay or in the instant revision petition nor there is any material on record to substantiate the said plea. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that delay of 14 days should have been condoned by the lower court because law of condonation of delay is liberal and the delay occurred because the petitioner is a Corporation of the State Government and therefore, there was procedural delay in taking decision to file the application under Section 34 of the Act. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. Proviso to Section 34 of the Act provides that Court can condone the delay up to 30 days and in the instant case, delay was of 14 days only. The said delay should have been condoned on payment of cost, C. R. No. 6307 of 2009 3 particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is statutory Corporation. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.07.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula is set aside and application Annexure P-1 moved by the petitioner in the lower court for condonation of delay is allowed and delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act is condoned, subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as cost precedent. Learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula shall now proceed to dispose of petitioner's application under Section 34 of the Act, on merits, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the said Court on 26.05.2010. April 28, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE