Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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