IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is no provision made in the Act of 1996 that if any party has bonafidely prosecuted its remedy before the other forum which had no jurisdiction then in that case the period spent in prosecuting the remedy in that court cannot be excluded.
2. Whenever two enactments are overlapping each other on same area then courts should be cautious in interpreting those provisions. It should not exceed the limit provided by statute.

Headnote:(i) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 5, 14 and 29 — Applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act to arbitration proceedings — Application for setting aside arbitration award — Delay in filing — Condonation petition — Whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been excluded by this special enactment i.e. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — (No) — By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act what is excluded is the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act — If any party has bonafidely prosecuted its remedy before the other forum which had no jurisdiction — Whether period spent in prosecuting the remedy bonafidely in that Court can be excluded in computing period of limitation — (Yes) — Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the Arbitration Act.
       Held : General proposition is by virtue of Section 43 of the Act of 1996 The Limitation Act 1963 applies to the Act of 1996 but by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, if any other period has been prescribed under the special enactment for moving the application or otherwise then that period of limitation will govern the proceedings under that Act, and not the provisions of the Limitation Act. In the present case under the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award on any of the grounds mentioned in Sub-Section (2) of Section 34 the period of limitation has been prescribed and that will govern. Likewise, the period of condonation of delay i.e. 30 days in proviso.(Para 14)
       But there is no provision made in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that if any party has bona fidely prosecuted its remedy before the other forum which had no jurisdiction then in that case whether the period spent in prosecuting the remedy bona fidely in that Court can be excluded or not. As per the provision sub-section (3) of Section 34 which prescribes the period of limitation (3 months) for moving the application for setting aside the award before the court then that period of limitation will be applicable and not the period of limitation prescribed in schedule under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus the provision of moving the application prescribed in Limitation Act, shall stand excluded by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 as under this special enactment the period of limitation has already been prescribed. Likewise the period of condonation of delay i.e. 30 days by virtue of proviso.(Para 15)
       Therefore, by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act what is excluded is the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act & under Section 3 read with Schedule which prescribes the period for moving application. (Para 16)
       There is no provision in whole of the Act which prohibit discretion of the court. Under section 14 of the Limitation Act if the party has been bona fidely prosecuting his remedy before the court which has no jurisdiction whether the period spent in that proceedings shall be excluded or not. (Para 18)
       There is no two opinion in the matter that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not expressly excluded the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The prohibitory provision has to be construed strictly. It is true that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 intended to expedite the commercial issue expeditiously. It is also clear in the statement of objects and reasons that in order to recognize economic reforms the settlement of both of domestic & international commercial disputes should be disposed of quickly so that countrys economic progress be expedited. The statement of objects and reasons also nowhere indicate that Section 14 of the Limitation act shall be excluded. But on the contrary intendment of legislature is apparent in the present case as Section 43 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies the Limitation Act, 1963 as a whole. It is only by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, its operation is excluded to that extent of the area which is covered under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (Para 23)
       In the present case under section 34 by virtue of sub-section 3 only the application for filing and setting aside the award a period has been prescribed as 3 months and delay can be condoned to the extent of 30 days To this extent the applicability of section 5 of Limitation will stand excluded but there is no provision in the Act of 1996 which excludes operation of section 14 of the Limitation Act. If two Acts can be read harmoniously without doing violation to the words used therein, then there is no prohibition in doing so. (Para 23)
       (ii) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Limitation Act, 1963 — Sections 5, 14 and 29 — Arbitration Award — Petition for making the award rule of the Court — Award was given on 7-2-1995 in favour of claimant — State of Goa was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 89763/- with interest at the rate of 15 p.a. — Petition was filed u/ss 30 and 53 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making rule of the Court — Civil Judge held that the Act of 1940 was not applicable and present proceedings shall be governed by the Act of 1996 — State filed a petition before the District Judge along with the application u/s 14 rw/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay — Prayer made that time spent in proceedings before the Civil Judge may be condoned and petition filed for setting aside the award u/s 34 of the Act of 1996 be considered — Application for condonation of delay u/s 14/5 of the Limitation Act was rejected by the District Judge holding that there was no provision for extension of time under the Act of 1996 — Whether High Court was justified in holding that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, — (No) — Arbitration Act, 1996 does not expressly exclude application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mathur, J. — All these batch of appeals are disposed of by a common judgment as same question of law involves in these appeals.

2. The basic question which involves in these appeals is applicability of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 in The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

3. However in order to appreciate the controversy involve in these appeals it is necessary to give few facts for that purpose the facts given in the C.A. No. 1457 of 1004 are taken into consideration.

4. A dispute arose between M/s. Western Builders Bitos Compound & The State of Goa, represented by The Executive Engineer, Works Division XX (PHE), Public Works Department, Fatorda, Margoa, Goa. Mr. P.K. Mohan, Ex-Executive Engineer, Goa P.W.D. residing at House No. 1505, Dr. Rego Bag, P.O. Barbolim Complex, Goa – 403202 was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator. He gave an award on 7th February, 1995 in favour of claimant and against the State of Goa and directed that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 89763/- and he further directed the State to pay simple interest on Rs. 75553/- from 4th January, 1993 at the rate of 15 per annum. This interest was payable till the date of decree of the award and till payment whichever is earlier.

5. Aggrieved against this award, a petition was filed before Civil Court, Civil Judge, Margao under sections 30 and 53 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making rule of the Court. Objection was raised that since The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996) has come into force therefore, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Civil Judge, Senior Division held that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there is no provision for making the award as a Rule of the Court. He observed that as per new Act of 1996 the award can be executed as decree. The learned Judge held that in view of the decision of the apex court given in the case of Thyseen Stahlunion SMBH vs. Steel Authority of India and in view of the decision of the Goa Bench in the case of Reshma Construction vs. State of Goa the Act of 1940 is not applicable and present proceedings shall be governed by the Act of 1996 and accordingly he disposed of the proceedings.

6. Thereafter the State of Goa filed a petition before the District Judge, South Goa along with the application under Section 14 read with Section 5 of The Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay as the Civil Judge, Senior Division has held that he had no jurisdiction, therefore, the time which is spent in these proceedings before the Civil Judge, Senior Division may be condoned and the petitions filed by the State of Goa for setting aside the award under Section 34 be considered. This application of State of Goa for condonation of delay under Section 14/5 of Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected by IInd Addl. District Judge, Sourth Goa on the ground that there is no provision for extension of time under the Act of 1996 & Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable by the order dated 7th March, 2002. Likewise the application under Section 34 was also rejected.

7. Aggrieved against this order an appeal was preferred by the State of Goa before the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench at Goa under Section 37(1b) of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This appeal came to be dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge by order dated 26.9.2002, in view of his detail reasons given in of the judgment delivered on 26.9.2002. It was held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable in view of sub-section 3 of Section 34 of the Act, 1996. Hence the present appeal.

8. In this background a common question of law arises in all these appeals, whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the Arbitration Act, 1996 or not.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the Arbitration proceedings are of civil nature & in vi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 575

Cases Referred (3)