Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

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