Mandatory limitation period under arbitration law bars belated challenge to award; delay beyond statutory grace period was not condonable.

A petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held barred by limitation because the application to set aside the arbitral award was filed beyond three months from receipt of the signed award, and the further thirty-day extension was the maximum condonable period. The court treated the time limit in section 34(3) as mandatory and found that the petitioner's explanation did not cover the delay, including the unexplained period from 5-2-2000 to 7-3-2000. The request for condonation was itself outside the statutory grace period, so the delay could not be condoned and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation and whether delay beyond the prescribed period could be condoned.

Analysis: Section 34(3) permits an application for setting aside an arbitral award within three months from receipt of the award, with a further condonable period of thirty days only if sufficient cause is shown, and not thereafter. The petitioner's own case showed receipt of the signed award on 5-11-1999, but the application was filed much later, and the delay from 5-2-2000 to 7-3-2000 remained unexplained. Even on the petitioner's explanation, the application for condonation itself was beyond the further statutory grace period. The statutory time limit under section 34(3) was treated as mandatory.

Conclusion: The petition was barred by limitation and the delay was not condonable. The petition was dismissed.

---