Limitation Act, 1963– s.17– Application of– If excluded whiledetermining the limitation period u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act – Disputesbetween the appellants and respondents over division of propertiesleft behind by their predecessor-in-interest – Arbitration – Arbitralaward – Thereafter, the appellants, allegedly in bad faith, enteredinto a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the respondentsagreeing to give certain additional properties to respondent no.1 –MoU contemplated for execution of Gift Deeds and Release Deedsby appellants in favour of respondent no.1 – However, the appellantsdelayed the execution of the Deeds and in the meanwhile, the three-month period and the extended period of 30 days for challengingthe Award u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act expired – Respondents filedapplication u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act for setting aside the Awardalongwith application seeking condonation of delay caused onaccount of alleged fraud played on them – Application forcondonation of delay dismissed– In revision petitions filed by therespondents, High Court remanded the matter to the trial courtconcerning the applicability of s.17, Limitation Act in an applicationu/s.34 of the 1996 Act – Held: Once the party has received theAward, the limitation period u/s.34(3), 1996 Act commences – s.17of the Limitation Act would not come to the rescue of such objectingparty – In the present case, the respondents had a right to challengethe Award u/s. 34 the moment they received it – Respondents receivedthe Award on 21.02.2010 – Once the respondents received the Award,the time u/s.34(3) commenced – Merely because the appellants hadcommitted some fraud, it would not affect the respondents right tochallenge the Award if the facts entitling the filing of s.34 Applicationwas within their knowledge – It was incumbent on the respondentsto have instituted an application u/s.34 challenging an award –Judgment of the High Court set aside – Order condoning the delay in filing the objections set aside – Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 – ss.29, 33, 34(3) and 36.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29 – Purport of –Discussed.Words & Phrases – “the period of limitation shall not beginto run”, “may not be made”, “express exclusion” in context ofs.17, Limitation Act and ss.34(3) and 29(2) of the 1996 Act –Meaning of – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Arbitration andConciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) & 29(2).