ORDER
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent/claimant against the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that the objections are barred by time. It is pointed out that the Award was made on 23.7.2002 but the objections were filed on 3.3.2003 and as such the same are beyond the period prescribed in Section 34(3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the objector-petitioner, however, submits that the copy of the Award was delivered to him by the respondent-claimant on 19.2.2003 and thereafter, the objections were filed on 3.3.2003 and as such, the same are within limitation.
2. A perusal of Section 39 of the Act reveals that an Arbitrator has a lien on the Award and may refuse to deliver the Award in case the payment of costs of arbitration is not being made. In the present case, the petitioner-objector, it appears, was not paying his share of costs to the Arbitrator and as such, the copy of Award was not given to it. Ultimately, the respondent-claimant paid the entire costs to the Arbitrator, obtained the Award and delivered a copy thereof to the respondent-objector on 19.2.2003.
3. In view of the provisions of Sections 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the limitation for filing the objections has to be computed from the date of delivery of the copy of the Award. If both the parties pay their respective share of costs to the Arbitrator and he delivers the Award to them, there arises no difficulty as the limitation for filing objections starts running from that date itself. However, there may be a situation in which a party is not willing to pay its share of costs to the Arbitrator for certain reasons. One reason may be the knowledge of a party that the Award is against it and as soon as it makes payment and gets copy of Award the limitation for filing objections would start running. With a view to delay execution of Award, such a party may adopt the strategy of not paying costs to the Arbitrator. In such a situation the Arbitrator would be within his rights to exercise his lien over the Award in terms of Section 39 of the Act, the relevant portion of which is extracted below:
”39. Lien on arbitral award and deposits as to costs.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) and to any provision to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal shall have a lien on the arbitral award for any unpaid costs of the arbitration.”
4. A party in whose favor the Award has gone, cannot be left high and dry and remediless. This Court is of the considered view that in such like situation, any party to the Award may make payment of entire costs to the Arbitrator, obtain the Award and the deliver a copy thereof to the opposite party which then shall be facing limitation if it intends to file objections against the Award. The party paying the entire costs may pray to the Court for recovery of costs also which it has paid for the opposite party or the Arbitrator may add these costs in the Award.
5. The plea of respondent/claimant is disposed of by holding that the objections are not barred by time and as such, are required to be disposed of on merits.
Since the Arbitrator has not filed the arbitral proceedings in Court so far, a fresh notice be issued to the Arbitrator with directions to file the arbitral proceedings in Court. The parties are also given liberty to place on record the copies of the arbitral proceedings available with them.