ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. The first appellant – the State of West Bengal appointed the respondent as a contractor for the construction of a bridge. As there was a dispute between the parties, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the contract, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. On 30 th June 2022, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,67,054.00 (Two Crores Eleven Lakhs Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sixty­Seven Thousand Fifty­Four Rupees Only) to the Anita Malhotra respondent with interest thereon, as directed. The counter­ Date: 2024.07.08 18:10:00 IST Reason:

2. Being aggrieved by the view taken by the High Court, the appellants are in this appeal. We may note here that under the impugned judgment, the High Court granted a certificate to prefer an appeal before this Court by exercising powers under Article 133 (1) and Article 134(A)(a) of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act ought to have been calculated from 1st July 2022, the prescribed period of limitation ended on 1st October 2022, which was the first day Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2023 Page 2 of 8 of pooja vacation. Therefore, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed immediately after the re­opening of the Court on 31st October 2022 must be held to be within limitation. The learned counsel relied upon Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, ‘the General Clauses Act ’). The learned counsel also submitted that the petition could not be e­filed in pooja vacation as the relevant e­filing notification provided for e­filing of only urgent matters during the vacations. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another1 .

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the High Court. He submitted that in any event, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is available only if the proceedings are filed within the prescribed period of limitation, which will be three months in this case in terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel relied upon a decision made by this court in the case of Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v Subash Projects & Mktg . Ltd.2. He also invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Company3 . He submitted that, as held by this Court in the said decision , the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation 1 (2010) 12 SCC 210] 2 (2012) 2 SCC 624 3 (2001) 8 SCC 470 Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2023 Page 3 of 8 Act is excluded in view of the language used in the proviso to sub­section (3) of Section 34 .

5. The facts are undisputed. The award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 30th June 2022 was served upon the appellant on the same day. Between 1 st October 2022 and 30th October 2022 (both days inclusive), the High Court was closed for pooja vacation. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 31st October 2022.

6. The period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is governed by sub­section (3) of Section 34 . Sub­section (3) of Section 34 reads thus:

7. As per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the day from which the limitation period is to be reckoned must be excluded. In this case, the period of limitation for filing a Civil Appeal No.7426 of 2023 Page 4 of 8 petition under Section 34 will have to be reckoned from 30 th June 2022, when the appellants received the award. In view of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, 30 th June 2022 will have to be excluded while computing the limitation period. Thus, in effect, the period of limitation, in the facts of the case, started running on 1 st July 2022. The period of limitation is of three months and not ninety days. Therefore, from the starting point of 1st July 2022, the last day of the period of three months would be 30 th September 2022. As noted earlier, the pooja vacation started on 1st October 2022.

8. We may note here that Section 43 of the Arbitration Act provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to the arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in the Court. We may note here that the consistent view taken by this Court right from the decision in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.3 is that given the language used in proviso to sub­section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been excluded.

9. Now, we proceed to consider whether the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Section 4 of the Limitation Act reads thus:

10. In the facts of the case in hand, the three months provided by way of limitation expired a day before the commencement of the pooja vacation, which commenced on 1st October 2022. Thus, the prescribed period within the meaning of Section 4 of the Limitation Act ended on 30 th September 2022. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. As per the proviso to sub­section (3) of Section 34 , the period of limitation could have been extended by a maximum period of 30 days. The maximum period of 30 days expired on 30 th October 2022. As noted earlier, the petition was filed on 31 st October 2022.

11. Thus, looking from the angle, the High Court was right in holding that the petition filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was not filed within the period specified under sub­section (3) of Section 34 . Hence, we find no merit in the appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

….…………………….J. (Abhay S. Oka) …..…………………...J. (Pankaj Mithal) New Delhi;

July 08, 2024.