NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. SANSARU DEVI

H

ig h Co ur t o f H

.P

.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Arb. Appeal No.24 of 2024

Decided on: 1^stAugust, 2024

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Highway Authority of India …..Appellant

Versus

Sansaru Devi .....Respondent

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate

with Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Nemo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Vide order dated 31.05.2024, notice was ordered

to be issued to the respondent and the execution of the

impugned order/judgment dated 19.04.2023 passed by the

learned District Judge, Mandi in Arbitration Petition No.76 of 2023 (NHAI Versus Sansaru Devi), whereby the award

dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Divisional

Commissioner, Mandi, had been upheld, was stayed subject

to deposit of the entire awarded amount alongwith upto

date interest. Respondent stands served, however, there is

no appearance on her behalf.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid order has not been complied ____________________

Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

1

2

with and the awarded amount has not been deposited. Be that as it may.

3. A perusal of the impugned decision dated 19.04.2023 reveals that in terms of the said decision, the application moved by the present applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, was dismissed on the ground that the delay beyond 120 days cannot be condoned.

4. It is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to an application challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. Under Section 34(3) of the Act, an application for setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act can be made within three months and the period can only be extended for a further period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The use of the words

"but not thereafter" in the proviso to Section 34 makes it clear that extension cannot be beyond thirty days (Ref.:

Simplex Infrastructure Limited Versus Union of India¹). In the instant case, three months' period from the date of receipt of award expired on 07.12.2022. Further period of three months lapsed on 06.01.2023. The petition

3

under Section 34 of the Act was instituted on 20.02.2023. There was a delay of about 44 days in moving the application under Section 34 of the Act by the present applicant. Learned District Judge, therefore, did not err in holding that a delay beyond 120 days in moving the application under Section 34 of the Act could not be condoned.

5. In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua

August 01, 2024 Judge

Mukesh