SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 619

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, R.V.RAVEENDRAN
State of Himachal Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Techno Engineers – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

The Supreme Court's decision in the provided document primarily addresses the limitation period for applications under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, related to setting aside arbitral awards. It emphasizes the importance of calculating the limitation period accurately, considering the date of receipt of the award and the correct interpretation of calendar months versus days. The Court clarifies that the period of limitation is to be computed from the day after the award is received, excluding holidays or non-working days when the award is delivered or left in the office on such days. It also stresses that the period of three months should be understood as calendar months, not merely 90 days, and the additional thirty days for condonation are also to be calculated accordingly (!) (!) (!) .

However, the document does not directly address limitation periods specifically for negotiable cases, such as negotiable instruments or related disputes. Its focus is on arbitration awards and the procedural aspects of filing petitions to set aside such awards within prescribed limitation periods. Therefore, based on this document, the Supreme Court did not provide a specific ruling or commentary on limitation for negotiable cases.


JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. —

Leave granted. Heard.

2.The appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh represented by the Executive Engineer, I&PH Division, Hamirpur) entered into a contract with the respondent on 15.7.2002, for the construction of a water purification plant. The respondent raised a dispute in regard to the payment for extra work, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award dated 5.11.2007 in favour of the respondent and sent it to the parties by speed post. The postal cover containing the award was received by a peon/beldar in the office of the Executive Engineer on 10.11.2007 (a Saturday) which was a government holiday. 11th November, 2007 being a Sunday was also a holiday. It was received by the Executive Engineer on 12.11.2007.

3.A petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) was filed by the appellant on 11.3.2008, challenging the arbitral award. The petition was accompanied by an application under sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act, for condonation of delay of 28 days in filing the petition. The respondent resisted the application contending that the petition under section 34 was filed beyond the pe























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top