STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus M/S. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINEERS & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 1025 · Decided: 26-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 1025 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. 
v. 
MIS. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINE=Rs & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5998 of 2010) 
JULY 26, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) 
Arbitrations and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
s. 34 -
Arbitration Award - Challenge to - Petition u/s. 34 along with 
A 
B 
the application for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing 
C 
application - Dismissal of, since it was filed on 11. 3. 08, 
beyond the period of three months plus thirty days -
On 
appeal held: Petition filed on 11. 3. 2008 was not barred by 
limitation - Date of delivery of award on non-working days 
could not be construed as 'receipt' of award by appellant -
D 
Date of receipt should be taken as 12. 11. 2007 -
For 
calculating three months period, date on which Executive 
Engineer received the award is to be excluded -
Three 
months would be calculated from 13. 11. 2007 and would 
expire on 12.2.2008 - Thirty days from 12.2.2008 under the 
E 
proviso should be calculated from 13. 2. 2008 and, tiaving 
regard to the number of days in February, would expire on 
13. 3. 2008 - Delay of twenty eight days in filing application ul 
s. 34 being within the limit of condonable delay, is condoned 
- Matter is remanded to High Court for consideration afresh 
F 
- Limitation Act, 1963 - s. 12- General Clauses Act, 1897 -
s. 9. 
The appellant-State is represented by the Executive 
Engineer. The appellant entered into a works contract with 
the respondent. Dispute arose with regard to payment for 
G 
extra work. The respondent referred the dispute to the 
arbitrator. The arbitrator passed an award in favour of the 
respondent. The peon in the Office of Executive Engineer 
received the award under postal cover on 10.11.2007- a 
1025 
H 
1026 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A Government holiday. Next day was a Sunday. The 
Executive Engineer received the award on 12.11.2007. 
The appellant filed a petition u/s. 34 of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996 on 11.3.2008 challenging the 
arbitration award along with an application for 
B condonation of 28 days in filing the petition. The High 
Court dismissed the application as also the petition since 
it was barred by limitation. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1 When the award is delivered or deposited 
or left in the office of a party on a non-working day, the 
date of such physical delivery is not the date of 'receipt' 
of the award by that party. The fact that the beldar or a 
watchman was present on a holiday or non-working day 
D and had received the copy of the award cannot be 
considered as 'receipt of the award' by the party 
concerned, for the purposes of s. 31 (5) of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996. The date of receipt will have 
to be the next working day. Though the cover containing 
E the award was delivered to the beldar in the office of the 
Executive Engineer on 10.11.2007 which was a holiday, 
the Executive Engineer received the award on 12.11.2007 
(Monday), which was the next working day. Therefore, the 
date of delivery of the award on a holiday (10.11.2007) 
F could not be construed as 'receipt' of the award by the 
appellant. The date of receipt therefore should be taken 
as 12.11.2007 and not 10.11.2007. [Para 7] [1032-G-H; 
1033-A-B] 
Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors 
G 2005 (4) SCC 239 - referred to. 
1.2. Section 12 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides for 
exclusion of time in legal proceedings. Sub-section (1) 
thereof provides that in computing the period of limitation 
H for any application, the day from which such period is to 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. H[MACHAL 
1027 
TECHNO ENGINEERS 
be reckoned, shall be excluded. The applicability of s. 12 
A 
to petitions u/s. 34 of the Act is not excluded by the 
provisions of the Act. Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 
1897 provides that in any Central Act, when the word 
'from' is used to refer to commencement of time, the first 
of the days in the period of time shall be excluded. 
B 
Therefore, the period of "three months from the date on 
which the party making that application had received the 
arbitral award" shall be computed from 13.11.2007. [Para 
8] [1033-C-E] 
2.1 The High Court held that 'three months' C 
mentioned in s. 34(3) refers to a period of 90 days. This 
is erroneous. A 'month' does not refer to a period of thirty 
days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar month. 
[Para 9] [1033-F-G] 
D 
2.2 Sub

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.