High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

Supreme Court: Limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award cannot be extended.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


April 10, 2023: In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the period of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall prevail over the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Justices M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari on April 10, 2023.

The case pertained to a dispute between a contractor and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over the construction of a highway. The contractor had challenged the arbitral award passed against it by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the application was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act, which is three months from the date of receipt of the award, or the time limit mutually agreed upon by the parties.

The contractor sought to condone the delay in filing the application by relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which provides for the extension of the period of limitation in certain circumstances. However, the High Court and the lower court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application as time-barred.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court observed that the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court, as provided under Section 43(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, the Court also held that the period of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall prevail over the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963, except to the extent its applicability has been excluded by virtue of an express provision contained in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.

The Court further observed that an application challenging an arbitral award filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act would not be an application “in accordance with” sub­section (3) as required under Section 34(1) of the Arbitration Act. The Court also emphasized the mandatory nature of the limit to the extension of the period provided in the proviso to Section 34(3) and held that an application for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has to be made within the time prescribed under sub­section (3) of Section 34 i.e. within three months and a further period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown and not thereafter.

Supreme Court dismissed the contractor's appeal and held that the High Court and the lower court had not committed any error in refusing to condone the delay caused in preferring the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. The Court also held that the present appeal deserved to be dismissed.

Bhimashankar Sahakari    Vs Walchandnagar Industries   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/10-Apr-2023-BHIMASHANKAR-Vs-WALCHANDNAGAR-INDUSTRIES-LTD^.pdf"]

Latest Legal News