Arbitral award limitation starts on delivery to the concerned office, and the Section 34 challenge period is strictly unextendible.

Receipt of a signed arbitral award for limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act occurs when it is delivered to the concerned party's office, not when it is later seen internally by another officer. The internal movement of the award within the department does not postpone the start of limitation. Section 34(3) allows a challenge within three months, with only a further thirty days on sufficient cause shown, and the outer limit is mandatory. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded for this purpose, so objections filed beyond that period are barred and cannot be condoned.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award was received for the purposes of limitation when it reached the office of the Chief Engineer, or only when it was later seen by another officer; (ii) Whether the delay in filing objections under Section 34 could be condoned beyond the further period of thirty days after expiry of three months.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award was received for the purposes of limitation when it reached the office of the Chief Engineer, or only when it was later seen by another officer.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated receipt of the signed award under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the event that starts limitation under Section 34(3). The award had been delivered to the office of the Chief Engineer, who was the concerned party to the arbitration and had signed and contested the contract. The rule in the cited Supreme Court decision concerning a different factual setting did not assist the petitioner, because there the award had been delivered to an officer who was not concerned with the arbitration proceedings. The subsequent internal movement of the award within the department and the later date on which it was perused did not postpone the commencement of limitation.

Conclusion: The award was received for limitation purposes when it was delivered to the office of the Chief Engineer on 28 July 2005.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in filing objections under Section 34 could be condoned beyond the further period of thirty days after expiry of three months.

Analysis: Section 34(3) prescribed an initial period of three months and permitted the court to entertain the application only within a further period of thirty days if sufficient cause was shown, and not thereafter. The provision was held to be mandatory and the bar beyond the extended period absolute, in view of the legislative scheme and the authority holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stood excluded. On the facts, even on the petitioner's own version, the objections were filed after the outer limit. The plea based on exclusion of the date of receipt and the Sunday holiday did not save limitation. The explanation offered for the departmental delay was found to be casual and unsupported by satisfactory material.

Conclusion: The delay was not condonable and the objections were barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award failed because the objections were filed beyond the statutorily permissible period and the court had no power to condone the delay beyond that outer limit.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the period for challenging an award runs from receipt of the signed award by the concerned party, and the court cannot entertain the challenge after the additional thirty-day period because the limitation is absolute and unextendible beyond that point.

---