2014 (1) TMI 1981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the prayer made by the present petitioner to recall the order dated 26.10.2010. 3. The facts of the case may be stated briefly as follows: An agreement was executed between the parties on 20.02.2002. On 27.06.2002, the bills were submitted by the petitioner, but they were not settled. On 12.08.2005, the Arbitrator was appointed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in ARBP No. 21 of 2004 filed by the petitioner. On 16.06.2006 the award was passed by the Arbitrator in favour of the petitioner. On 28.01.2008, the opposite party obtained copy of the award. On 29.04.2008, Arbitration Petition No.106 of 2008 was filed by the opposite party before the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 199....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....preme Court further held that if the month is February, the period will be twenty-nine days or twenty-eight days depending upon whether it is a leap year or not. 6. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further went on to hold that Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act and the proviso thereto significantly do not express the periods of time mentioned therein in the same units. Sub-section (3) uses the words "three months" while prescribing the period of limitation and the proviso uses the words "thirty days" while referring to the outside limit of condonable delay. The Supreme Court held that the Legislature did not intend that the period of three months used in Sub-section (3) to be equated to 90 days, nor intended that the period ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... party i.e. on 28.01.2008 shall be excluded from computation of the limitation. 8. Therefore, computing the period of limitation from 29.01.2008, 3 days of January, 29 days of February (as 2008 was a leap year), 31 days of March and 28 days of April shall be included in the limitation. Thus, a total period of 91 days is the period of limitation for the present opposite party to prefer an application under Section 34 of the Act. However, it is not disputed that the period of limitation was ended on 28.04.2008. However, the application was filed on 29.08.2008. Therefore, it is seen that there is delay of one day in preferring the application under Section 34 of the Act. However, it is not disputed that 28.01.2008 was a holiday, because the....