Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. Appellant impugns order dated 07.08.2021, whereby the application filed by the Appellant under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Arbitration Act) has been dismissed holding that the appellant has failed to furnish any sufficient cause for not challenging the award within the prescribed period of limitation and consequently the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, impugning the arbitral award dated 14.11.2019, have been dismissed.
2. The Trial Court has held that the appellant has not been able to show sufficient cause for not moving the application within the original period of 90 days.
3. For ascertaining whether the objections have been filed within time and as to whether the Appellant had shown sufficient cause which prevented the appellant from filing the objections within the stipulated period of three months, it would be expedient to refer to the factual matrix.
4. The award impugned was published on 14.11.2019. The appellant on the said date was in Canada. Since the Tribunal was constituted by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC for short), Appellant by email dated 16.11.2019, requested DIAC for being provided with a copy of the Award.
5. Appellant was informed that a copy of the award had been sent by speed post, however a soft copy of the award dated 14.11.2019 was sent by email on 20.11.2019. Appellant contends that he received the copy of the award sent by speed post only on his return from Canada.
6. Calculated from 20.11.2019, the time for filing the objections expired on 20.02.2020, excluding the date of receipt of the copy by email.
7. As per the appellant, he was in Canada and returned only on 29.02.2020. Appellant was thereafter quarantined as per the advisory of the Government and as soon as he was released from quarantined, lockdown was imposed in the country. It is contended that as one of his neighbours was tested positive, the entire street, where the house of the appellant is situated, was blocked and no one was allowed out of their houses. It was only on 04.06.2020 that his neighbor delivered the hard copy of the award. It is submitted that his counsel was not cooperating and as such the appellant has to apply for the certified copy of the Arbitral Award.
8. The Supreme Court of India in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) 3 of 2020 by order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period of limitation with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders.
9. Subject objections under section 34 of the Arbitration Act were filed on 23.01.2021. It was contended by the appellant that the entire period w.e.f. 15.03.2020 till 23.01.2021 was liable to be excluded while computing limitation.
10. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act stipulates as under:
"(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."
11. Section 34(3) of the Arbitr........