M/s. Rexon Strips Ltd. & another ....... Opp. Parties Advocates for the parties: For Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Chhabra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Adv. (For Opp. Party No.1) Date of Hearing: 29.08.2024 Date of Judgment: 17.12.2024 S.K. Mishra, J. This Writ Petition has been preferred for quashing of the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by the District Judge, Sundargarh in Arbitration Case No.03 of 2022, vide which the Court below condoned the delay in filing an application by the Opposite Party No.1 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, shortly, hereinafter, 'the Act,1996'. W.P.(C) No.42509 of 2023 Page 1 of 30 2. The factual matrix of the case, as detailed in the Writ Petition, is that the Petitioner, which is an industrial unit, registered under the Micro Small Medium Enterprises Development Act, in short, 'MSMED Act', supplied iron ore to the Opposite Party No.1. On 30.03.2016, the PetitionerCompany filed a claim/reference for passing of award under section 18(1) of the MSMED Act before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Cuttack, in short, 'MSEFC', for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,68,342/ so also interest for delayed payment under sections 15, 16 & 17 of the MSMED Act amounting to Rs.4,94,305/ (in total Rs.8,62,647/). After hearing both the parties, the MSEFC passed an award on 26.02.2019 directing the Opposite Party No.1 to pay the principal amount along with the interest within 30 days. However, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to pay the awarded sum. Instead of preferring an application under section 34 the Act, 1996, it approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.10261 of 2019, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Opposite Party No.1 on 08.03.2022. Pursuant to the same, the Opposite Party No.1 preferred an application before the District Judge, Sundargarh under section 34 of the Act, 1996 challenging the said award passed by the MSEFC, Cuttack dated 26.02.2019 along W.P.(C) No.42509 of 2023 Page 2 of 30 with an I.A. under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in short, 'the Act, 1963', for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the District Judge, Sundargarh vide the impugned order dated 30.10.2023. 3. The said order has been challenged on the ground that though the impugned award was passed by the MSEFC, Cuttack on 26.02.2019, which was received by the Opposite Party No.1 on 24.05.2019, the Appeal was preferred on 31.03.2022 i.e. after about two years and ten months. As per subsection (3) of section 34 of the Act, 1996, no application for setting aside the award be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making the application has received the arbitral award. However, if the applicant satisfies the Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause for not making the application within three months of the receipt of the award, the application could be entertained only for a period of 30 days beyond the period of three months and not beyond that. Thus, the Act, 1996, being a special law embodying its own provision for limitation, shall prevail over the general law of Limitation Act, 1963. A ground has also been urged in the Writ Petition that the period of contest in the Writ Petition preferred by the Opposite Party vide W.P.(C) No.10261 of 2019, challenging the impugned W.P.(C) No.42509 of 2023 Page 3 of 30 award dated 26.02.2019, cannot be excluded under section 5 and/or section 14 of the Act, 1963. Thus, the Court below condoned the delay in preferring appeal under section 34 of the Act, 1996 in violation of the established precedents. 4. Being noticed, a Counter Affidavit has been