As per case facts, an Arbitral Award was passed, which the appellants sought to challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, initially filing it at Karnal. However, the Karnal ... Court returned the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellants subsequently re-filed the petition before the Commercial Court at Gurugram. The respondent argued that the re-filed petition was time-barred, leading the appellants to seek exclusion of time under Sections 14 and 5 of the Limitation Act. The lower court dismissed the appellants' application under Sections 14 and 5 and allowed the respondent's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, rejecting the petition as time-barred. The High Court needed to address whether the appellants were entitled to exclusion of time for proceedings before the wrong court and if Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to the extended 30-day period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Finally, the High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 34 proceedings, and even after granting the benefit of Section 14 for the time spent in the wrong court, the petition was still filed beyond the maximum period of 3 months plus 30 days, making it time-barred. The appeal was dismissed.