But Not Thereafter

But not thereafter, As far as the language of s. 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are 'but not thereafter' used in the proviso to sub-s. (3). This phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of s. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of s. 5 of that Act. To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase 'but not thereafter' wholly otiose, Union of India v. Popular Construction, (2001) 8 SCC 470. [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s. 34(3)]