STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.versusM/S. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINEERS & ANR.

                    [2010] 8 S.C.R. 1025


         STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.                           A
                               v.
      MIS. HIMACHAL TECHNO ENGINE=Rs & ANR.
             (Civil Appeal No. 5998 of 2010)
                        JULY 26, 2010
                                                                    B
 [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
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-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act and the
proviso thereto significantly, does not express the
periods of time mentioned therein in the same units. Sub-
section (3) uses the words 'three months' while
prescribing the period of limitation and the proviso uses      E
the words 'thirty days' while referring to the outside limit
of condonable delay. The legislature had the choice of
describing the periods of time in the same units, that is
to describe the periods as 'three months' and 'one month'
respectively or by describing the periods as 'ninety days'     F
and 'thirty days' respectively. It did not do so. Therefore,
the legislature did not intend that the period of three
months used in sub-section (3) to be equated to 90 days,
nor intended that the period of thirty days to be taken as
one month. [Paras 10 and 11] [1033-H; 1034-A-F]                G
    Sa/ma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 197 -
referred to. Dodds v. Walker (1981) 2 All ER 609 - referred
to.

    3. As the award was received by the Executive . H
    1028   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A Engineer on 12.11.2007, for the purpose of .calculating the
  three months period, the said date shall have to be
  excluded having regard to section 12(1) of Limitation Act,
  1963 and section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897.
  Consequently, the three months should be calculated
B from 13.11.2007 and would expire on 12.2.2008. Thirty
  days from 12.2.2008 under the proviso should be                  1


  calculated from 13.2.2008 and, having regard to the
  number of days in February, would expire on 13.3.2008.
  Therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was well in time
c and was not barred by limitation. [Para 12) [1034-G-H;
  1035-A-B]

       4. The order of the High Court is set aside. The delay
  of twenty eight days on the part of the appellant in filing
  the application u/s. 34 of the Act being within the limit of
D condonable delay, is condoned, as sufficient cause was
  shown. The matter is remanded to the High Court for
  consideration of the petition under section 34 of the Act
  on merits, in accordance with law. [Para 13) [1035-C]

E                      Case Law Reference:
       2005 (4) sec 239           Referred to.         Para 7
       (1981) 2 All ER 609        Referred to.         Para 11
       (2001) 1 sec 197           Referred to.         Para 11
F
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5998 of 2010.

       From the Judgment & Order dated 06.03.2009 of the High
G Court of Himanchal Pradesh at Shimla in Arbitration Case No.
  7 of 2008.

        Naresh K. Sharma for the Appellant.

      S.R. Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Priya Kashyap for the
H Respondents.
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v. HIMACHAL                     1029
             TECHNO ENGINEERS

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                        A

     R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.1. Leave granted. Heard.

     2. The appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh represented
by the Executive Engineer, l&PH Division, Hamirpur) entered
into a contract with the respondent on 15.7.2002, for the             B
construction of a water purification plant. The respondent raised
a dispute in regard to the payment for extra work, which was
referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award dated
5.11.2007 in favour of the respondent and sent it to the parties
by speed post. The postal cover containing the award was              C
received by a peon/beldar in the office of the Executive
Engineer on 10.11.2007 (a Saturday) which was a government
holiday. 11th November, 2007 being a Sunday was also a
holiday. It was received by the Executive Engineer on
12.11.2007.                                                           D

      3. A petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act' for short) was filed by the appellant
on 11.3.2008, challenging the arbitral award. The petition was
accompanied by an application under sub-section (3) of                E
section 34 of the Act, for condonation of delay of 28 days in
filing the petition. The respondent resisted the application
contending that the petition under section 34 was filed beyond
the period of 3 months plus 30 days and therefore, was liable
to be rejected. A learned Single Judge of the High Court
                                                                      F
dismissed the application for condonation of delay and as a
consequence dismissed the petition under section 34 of the Act.
He held that as the award was received in the office on
10.11.2007, the period of three months, that is "90 days" had
to be reckoned from 11.11.2007 by excluding the date of
receipt; that the said three months period ended on 9.2.2008;         G
that even if the maximum additional period of 30 days was
counted thereafter (by calculating from 10.2.2008), the last date
of limitation for filing the petition would have been 10.3.2008
and therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was barred by
limitation. He held that court had power to condone the delay         H
    1030     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A   only to a maximum period of ninety days plus thirty days and
    therefore, the delay in filing the petition on 11.3.2008 could not
    be condoned. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this
    appeal by special leave.

B        4. Section 34 of the Act relates to applications for setting
    aside arbitral awards. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 prescribes
    the period of limitation for such applications. It reads thus:

         "(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after
         three months have elapsed from the date on which the
C        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:

0        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."

E Having regard to the proviso to section 34(3) of the Act, the
  provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply
  in regard to petitions under section 34 of the Act. While section
  5 of the Limitation Act does not place any outer limit in regard
  to the period of delay that could be condoned, the proviso to
F sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act places a limit on the
  period of condonable delay by using the words "may entertain
  the application within a further period of thirty days but not
  thereafter." Therefore, if a petition is filed beyond the prescribed
  period of three months, the court has the discretion to condone
G the delay only to an extent of thirty days, provided sufficient
  cause is shown. Where a petition is filed beyond three months
  plus thirty days, even if sufficient cause is made out, the delay
  cannot be condoned.

         5. This leads us to the question whether the petition was
H
   STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH v HIMACHAL                       1031
   TECHNO ENGINEERS [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

filed beyond three months plus thirty days. There is no dispute        A
that if the ·petition had been filed within a period of three months
plus thirty days, the delay has to be condoned as sufficient
cause was shown by the appellant for condonation of the delay.
But the High Court has accepted the contention of the
respondent that the period of three months plus thirty days            B
expired on 10.3.2008 and therefore the petition filed on
11.3.2008 was barred. Therefore, the following questions arise
for our consideration:

     (i) What is the date of commencement of limitation?
                                                                       c
    (ii) Whether the period of three months can be counted as
90 days?

     (iii) Whether only three months plus twenty eight days had
expired when the petition was filed as contended by the                o
appellant, or whether petition was filed beyond three months
plus thirty days, as contended by the respondent?

Re : Question (i)

     6. Sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act provides that         E
an application for setting aside an award may not be made
after three months have elapsed from the date on which the
party making that application has received the arbitral award.
Sub-section (5) of section 31 of the Act provides that after an
arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to            F
each party. If one of the parties to arbitration is a government
or a statutory body or a corporation, which has notified holidays
or non-working days, and if the award was delivered to it on a
holiday, the question is whether the date of physical delivery to
the office of a party, should be considered as the date of receipt     G
of the award by the party, or the next working day should be
considered as the date of receipt.

     7. In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers &
Contractors [2005 (4) SCC 239), this Court considered the
                                                                       H
    1032    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A   meaning of the word 'received' in Section 31 (5) of the Act and
    held:

        "The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-Section (5) of
        Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter
        of substance ....... The delivery of arbitral award to the
B
        party, to be effective, has to be "received" by the party. This
        delivery by the arbitral tribunal and receipt by the party of
        the award sets in motion several periods of limitation such
        as an application for correction and interpretation of an
        award .vithin 30 days under Section 33(1 ), an application
c       for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and
        an application for setting aside an award under Section
        34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has
        the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also
        bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on
D       expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would
        be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of
        award by the tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party
        constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings.

E       In the context of a huge organization like Railways, the
        copy of the award has to be received by the person who
        has knowledge of the proceedings and who would be the
        best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral
        award and also to take a decision in the matter of moving
        an application under sub-Section (1) or (5) of Section 33
F
        or under sub-Section (1) of Section 34.

  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.
G The fact that the beldar or a watchman was present on a holiday
  or non-working day and had received the copy of the award
  cannot be considered as 'receipt of the award' by the party
  concerned, for the purposes of section 31(5) of the Act.
  Necessarily the date of receipt will have to be the next working
H day. In this case, it is not disputed that though the cover
   STATE OF HI MAC HAL PRADESH v. HIMACHAL                    1033
   TECHNO ENGINEERS [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]

containing the award was delivered to the beldar in the office         A
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 we hold
that the date of delivery of the award on a holiday (10.11.2007)
could not be construed as 'receipt' of the award by the                B
appellant. The date of receipt therefore should be taken as
12.11.2007 and not 10.11.2007.

     8. Section 12 of Limitation Act, 1963 provides for
exclusion of time in legal proceedings. Sub-section (1) thereof        C
provides that in computing the period of limitation for any
application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned,
shall be excluded. The applicability of Section 12 of Limitation
Act, 1963 to petitions under Section 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           D
word 'from' is used to refer to commencement of time, the first
of the days in the period of time shall be excluded. 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.                                           E

Re : Question (ii)

      9. The High Court has held that 'three months' mentioned
in section 34(3) of the Act refers to a period of 90 days. This
                                                                       F
is erroneous. A 'month' does not refer to a period of thirty days,
but refers to the actual period of a calendar month. If the month
is April, June, September or November, the period of the month
will be thirty days. If the month is January, March, May, July,
August, October or December, the period of the month will be
thirty one days. If the month is February, the period will be twenty   G
nine days or twenty eight days depending upon whether it is a
leap year or not.

    10. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act and the proviso
thereto significantly, do not express the periods of time              H
    1034    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A mentioned therein in the same units. Sub-section (3) uses the
  words 'three months' while prescribing the period of limitation
  and the proviso uses the words 'thirty days' while referring to
  the outside limit of condonable delay. The legislature had the
  choice of describing the periods of time in the same units, that
B is to describe the periods as 'three months' and 'one month'
  respectively or by describing the periods as 'ninety days' and
  'thirty days' respectively. It did not do so. Therefore, the
  legislature did not intend that the period of three months used
  in sub-section (3) to be equated to 90 days, nor intended that
c the period of thirty days to be taken as one month.

       11. Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897
  defines a month as meaning a month reckoned according to
  the British calendar. In Dodds v. Walker- (1981) 2 All ER 609,
  the House of Lords held that in calculating the period of a month
D or a specified number of months that had elapsed after the
  occurrence of a specified event, such as the giving of a notic1a,
  the general rule is that the period ends on the corresponding
  date in the appropriate subsequen~ month irrespective of
  whether some months are longer than others. To the same
E effect is the decision of this Court in Bibi Sa/ma Khatoon v
  State of Bihar- (2001) 7 SCC 197. Therefore when the perioo
  prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from
  a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month
  on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period
F starts. As a result, depending upon the months, it may mean
  90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days.

    Re: Question (iii)

       12. As the award was received by the Executive Engineer
G on 12.11.2007, for the purpose of calculating the three months
  period, the said date shall have to be excluded having regard
  to Section 12(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 9 of
  General Clauses Act, 1897. Consequently, the three months
  should be calculated from 13.11.2007 and would expire on
H
   STATE OF HI MAC HAL PRADESH v. HI MAC HAL               1035
   TECHNO ENGINEERS [RV RAVEENDRAN, J.]

12.2.2008. Thirty days from 12.2.2008 under the proviso             A
should be calculated from 13.2.2008 and, having regard to the
number of days in February, would expire on 13.3.2008.
Therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was well in time and
was not barred by limitation.
                                                                    B
Conclusion

     13. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the
order of the High Court is set aside. The delay of twenty eight
days on the part of the appellant in filing the application under
section 34 of the Act being within the limit of condonable delay,   C
is condoned, as sufficient cause was shown. The matter is
remanded to the High Court for consideration of the petition
under section 34 of the Act on merits, in accordance with law.

N.J.                                           Appeal allowed.