arbp159-10.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.159 OF 2010 M/s.Bombay Railway Engineering Co .. Petitioner Versus General Manager, Central Railway, & Anr .. Respondents Mr.G.V.Merani, petitioner present. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7th FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. . Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing for the respondents. 2 The challenge in this petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is to an award passed by the arbitration tribunal dated 20th June 2008. arbp159-10.doc 2 3 Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection to this Court entertaining the petition to set aside an award on the ground that it is filed beyond the period prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read alongwith its proviso. 4 There is much substance in the objection raised by Mr.Suresh Kumar. It is surprising that the Registry has entertained and numbered this petition and placed it for admission without any scrutiny and verification with regard to the period of limitation provided in law and the date of its institution. 5 From the record it is clear that the award has been rendered on 20th June 2008. This date is not disputed by the petitioner as well. However, in para 5 of the petition he has stated as under: “5. Petitioners submit that the award as declared contains errors of facts, requiring rectification, lacking arbp159-10.doc 3 in interpretation of specific points sought and claim- items missing from the award, necessitating additional award. petitioners therefore made a reference to the learned Arbitrator under section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by our letter 30th June 2008, praying for additional award, among other things. Petitioners submit that according to section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned Arbitrator was expected to correct errors and give interpretation on specific points within 30 days of the date of receipt of the application and to declare additional award within 60 days from the same date but the learned Arbitrator has neither disposed of the reference so far nor extended the time period suitably, for its disposal. Enquiries by the petitioners have revealed that the learned Arbitrator has since retired from railway service, though neither the respondent arbp159-10.doc 4 No.1 nor the learned Arbitrator had the courtesy to inform petitioners about the event. Petitioners by FORM-B dated 30th September 2008 agreed to receive the amount, payable under the impugned award, subject to receipt of Supplementary Award as expected by petitioners, in response to our application at Exhibit E.” 6 The petitioner appearing in person tried to persuade me on the basis of these statements by urging that if the request made in writing to the arbitral tribunal under section 33 of the Act is not disposed off, then, the petitioner cannot be faulted for approaching this Court belatedly. The time will start running only when the request is disposed off by the arbitral tribunal. 7 I am afraid I cannot accept this argument in the light of the plain statutory provision. The Court has no power beyond the period stipulated in section 34(3) of the Act read with the proviso. arbp159-10.doc 5 Admittedly, that period has since expired. The award is rendered on 20th June 2008. The request made by the petitioner stated to be one under section 33 of the Act is by letter dated 30th June 2008. The present petition is filed on 18th December 2009. By no stretch of imagination can the period which has been taken for institution of this petition can be condoned. The Court cannot apply any liberal principles much less section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Union of India Vs. M/s.Popular Construction Company & Anr reported in (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 470, the Supreme Court has held that a Court cannot take recourse to section 5 of the Limitation Act and the period prescribed to challenge the award is absolute and unextendable by the Court. This decision has been followed subsequently as well. 8 For the reasons aforestated and finding that the petition is barred by limitation, it is dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)