- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8976-DB COMAP No. 387 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 387 OF 2024(AA) BETWEEN: SRI M.H. KUMARASWAMY, S/O HALAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O “AVVA”, 3RD CROSS, ASHOKANAGAR, TUMAKURU-577 501. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH .P.H, ADVOCATE) AND: THE REGIONAL OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NAGASANDRA, MS RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, BANGALORE - TUMAKURU ROAD, BANGALORE-560 073. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT PLANNING UNIT, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 206, MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, BATAWADI, TUMAKURU CITY-572 102. 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 206, Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8976-DB COMAP No. 387 of 2024 BETTASHREE COMPLEX, ABOVE RENUKA SUPER BAJAR 1ST FLOOR, 60 FEET ROAD, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, TUMAKURU CITY-572 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2024 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN COM.AP NO.24/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAID COM.AP 24/2023. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 31.01.2024 in Com.A.P.24/2023 passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition. The challenge made by the appellant herein is to an award dated 18.08.2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator by stating in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8976-DB COMAP No. 387 of 2024 “8. The copy of impugned award produced along with the petition indicates that it was issued on 27.07.2023. It is important to note that the records received from the arbitrator/Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur indicates that on 25.08.2021 itself the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the impugned order and on the same day itself the copy was issued to him. In that regard, he has made endorsement on the application. Thus, it is clear that on 25.08.2021 itself the copy of impugned order was communicated to the petitioner herein. As observed earlier the petition U/sec.34 shall be filed within 03 months from the date of receipt of award. So, the 03 months stipulated U/sec.34(3) of A and C Act has elapsed on 25.11.2021. But, the present petition has been filed on 08.08.2023. Thus, it is clear that the petition has been. filed after lapse of 03 months as prescribed U/sec.34(3) of A and C Act. 9. However, along with the petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.I U/sec.5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the present petition. It is pertinent to note that the main petition is filed U/sec.34 of A and C Act challenging the arbitral award passed by the arbitrator in LAQ/ARB/206:CR/206/202 dated:18.08.2021. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8976-DB COMAP No. 387 of 2024 Therefore, the question for consideration is as to whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to an application challenging an award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This question has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case UNION OF INDIA VS POPULAR CONSTRUCTION CO reported in MANU/SC/0613/2001 and has held in the negative.” 2. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as not maintainable/as barred by limitation. 3. In view of the fact that, the application seeking condonation of delay is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was rejected, we are of the view that the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not maintainable. 4. In any case, accepting the fact that application under Section 5 of the limitation Act was not maintainable, and the facts as noted in the impugned order reveal that, the award dated 18.08.2021 was challenged by the learned counsel for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8976-DB COMAP No. 387 of 2024 the appellant by filing the petition on 08.08.2023 much beyond the permissible limit of three months and thirty days, the conclusion is justified. 5. It also follows, we agree with the final conclusion drawn by the learned Sessions Judge in rejecting the application for condonation of delay and consequently the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. The appeal is dismissed being without merit. 7. Pending IAs if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21