2025:HHC:5622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 14 of 2024 Date of decision : 11.3.2025. State of H.P. & another ...Petitioners. Versus Tilak Raj ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Diwakar Dutt Sharma, Addl. A.G. For the respondent : Mr. R. L. Chaudhary, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) By way of instant application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. It is averred that the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 30.9.2023 and signed copy of the same was received by applicant No.2 on the same day i.e. 30.9.2023. Thereafter, the file travelled through various administrative and legal channels and sanction was accorded by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- competent authority to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act. Noticeably, the applicants have not mentioned the date of filing of the petition in the Registry of this Court. 3. Record reveals that the applicants have filed the petition under Section 34 of the Act in this Court on 7.2.2024. 4. As per Section 34 (3) of the Act, an application for setting aside the award can be made within three months from the date of receipt of signed copy of the award. The applicants have admitted to have received the signed copy of award on 30.9.2023. Thus, the applicants could have filed the application under Section 34 of the Act within three months i.e. till 30.12.2023. 5. On failure to file the application under Section 34 of the Act within three months, the applicants can be allowed to file the application within a further period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown by the applicants for the delay. However, the instant application has not been filed even within 30 days after 30.12.2023. The fact that the date of filing is 7.2.2024 clearly reveals that the instant -3- application has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act. It is well settled that the Court does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period as prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act. 6. Since in the instant case, the application has not been filed either within three months from the date of passing of award or within 30 days thereafter, therefore, the prayer made in the application for condonation of delay cannot be allowed. 7. In result, the application is dismissed with no orders as to cost. (Satyen Vaidya) 11th March, 2025 Judge (kck)