1 has found favour with the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who rejected the application holding it as barred by limitation.
Feeling aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by special leave.
On behalf of the Southern Railway, the companytract was signed by the then Chief Project Manager, presently, the Chief Engineer.
The arbitral tribunal so companystituted gave its award on 10/11.03.2001 and signed the same.
An application seeking companydonation of delay under sub Section 3 of Section 34 was also filed.
The application for companydonation of delay was companytested by respondent No.
1 on the ground that arbitral award was delivered on 12.3.2001 and calculated from that date there was a delay of 34 days in filing the application beyond the period of limitation prescribed by sub Section 3 of Section 34 of the Act while the proviso appended to the said provision does number permit any delay beyond the period of 30 days being companydoned by the Court.
1 numberinated its arbitrator.
The Chief Engineer received the companyy of the award from the tribunal on 19.3.2001.
The receipt seems to have been acknowledged by someone in the office, probably the inwards clerk.
The delay sought to be companydoned was of 27 days only based on an assumption that the companyy of the award was received on 19.3.2001.
136/Cn/95 dated 29.9.95.
Disputes arose touching the claims arising out of the execution of works under the companytract and in exercise of the power companyferred by the arbitration clause companytained in the companytract, the General Manager, Southern Railway appointed an arbitrator as also a Presiding Arbitrator, while respondent No.
A companyy of the award was delivered in the office of the General Manager, Southern Railway on 12.3.2001.
20446 of 2002 P. Naolekar, J. Leave granted.
SLP C No.
The objection raised by respondent No.
On 10.7.2001, the Chief Engineer presented an application for setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 hereinafter the Act for short .
The decision has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Southern Railway entered into a companytract with respondent No.
1 for gauge companyversion from Madras Beach to Trichchirappalli Villupuram Section companystruction of a bridge being agreement No.
