IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation period of three months u/s 34 cannot be condoned beyond thirty days.

Headnote:(a) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(3) and 31(5) – Limitation – Commencing after valid delivery of arbitral award u/s 31(5) – Words 'but not thereafter' – Mandatory – Limitation period of three months cannot be condoned beyond thirty days. (Para 15)
       (2005) 4 SCC 239; (2011) 4 SCC 616 – Relied upon
       (b) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(5) and 34(3) – Anilkumar acting for himself and his family members as their power of attorney holder – Signing and Receiving IMOU and arbitral award in that capacity – Many circumstances showing Anilkumar acting on the award on his and his family members behalf – Held, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 cannot turn round and contend that copy of the award was received by Anilkumar and they had not received the copy of the award. (Para 26)
       Facts of the case:
       Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel, who are brothers, together started the business of fertilizer manufacturing, chemical and real estate at Jalgaon. In the course of business, they set up number of companies and partnership concerns and acquired numerous immovable and movable properties. Pravinchandra Patel has three daughters, who are married and settled outside Jalgaon. Anilkumar Patel has three sons, who are residing with him at Jalgaon.
       In order to avoid any possible litigation, both the brothers and their family members decided to make division of the assets of the family. For this purpose, they appointed Latikaben (respondent No.12) and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel (respondent No.11) who is the sister and brother-in-law of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel as arbitrators.
       In the meantime Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel signed of an interim MOU (IMOU).
       The arbitrators passed the award (with a mention of IMOU) under which certain properties were given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel whereas some other assets were kept undivided with equal rights and interest thereon of both groups.
       Anilkumar Patel and his family members (appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10) filed an arbitration petition No.202 of 2005 under Section 34 of the Act challenging the award dated 07.07.1996 contending that they learnt about the arbitral award only on 11.08.2005 when they were served with the notice of execution petition filed by Pravinchandra Patel alongwith the xerox of the award dated 07.07.1996. Therefore, as per the appellant-Anilkumar Patel, period of limitation starts only from 11.08.2005, from the date of their receipt of copy of the award. It was further alleged that, appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 were not included as party in the award dated 07.07.1996 and the award is not binding on them. They have, inter alia, alleged that the award is a false and fraudulent document. They also emphasized that the signature of Anilkumar Patel in the arbitral award showing his acknowledgement was forged and therefore, could not be acted upon.
       Later on, an application came to be filed by Anilkumar Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members for an amendment stating that the arbitration petition No.202 of 2005 filed initially, did not contain the challenge to award dated 03.11.1996 and hence, by an amendment sought to challenge award dated 03.11.1996 as well. The said application was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
       Insofar as the challenge to the award dated 07.07.1996, the application was allowed.
       Pravinchandra Patel filed W.P. No.4669 of 2011. The High Court set aside the order of the District Judge holding that the petition filed in the year 2005 under Section 34 of the Act was time barred.
       Finding of the Court:
       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
       Result: Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Appellants have filed these appeals challenging the judgment dated 27.03.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 4669 of 2011 in and by which the High Court held that challenge to the arbitral award dated 07.07.1996 was time barred under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act").

3. The facts of the case are that the appellant No.1/Anilkumar Patel and respondent No.1/Pravinchandra Patel are real brothers and sons of Jinabhai. They had three other brothers who were already separated. So far as the parties before us, they are related as under:-

Jinabhai

Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel (R1) =Savitaben P. Patel/wife (R2)

Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel (A1) =Geetaben A. Patel/wife (A1(a))*



Kalpita Dilipkumar Patel (R3)	Alpita Jayesh Soni (P.4)	Trupti P. Patel (p.5)

Darshan A. Patel (A1(b))*

=Monika Darshan Patel/wife (R10)

Chetan A. Patel (A1(c))*

Vikram A.Patel (A1(d))*

[*Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 have been deleted as respondents and added as LRs of the appellant vide order dated 30.04.2015 in the SLP]

Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel together started the business of fertilizer manufacturing, chemical and real estate at Jalgaon. In the course of business, they set up number of companies and partnership concerns and acquired numerous immovable and movable properties. Pravinchandra Patel has three daughters, who are married and settled outside Jalgaon. Anilkumar Patel has three sons, who are residing with him at Jalgaon. As children of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel grew up and in order to avoid any possible litigation, both the brothers and their family members decided to make division of the assets of the family. For this purpose, they approached Latikaben (respondent No.12) and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel (respondent No.11) who is the sister and brother-in-law of Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel and parties have agreed to appoint them as arbitrators. It culminated into an MOU dated 21.05.1996 appointing Latikaben and Bhikhalal Nathalal Patel as arbitrators which was signed by all the members of the family that is the appellants and respondents.

4. While arbitrators were away to Rajkot due to emergency work, both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel decided to streamline the ongoing business of firms and companies by signing of an interim MOU on 29.06.1996 (IMOU). The covenants of the said IMOU covered the matters relating to bank accounts and withdrawal power, NPK allocation etc. The said IMOU was signed by Pravinchandra Patel for himself and on behalf of his family members. Similarly, Anilkumar Patel signed in the IMOU for himself and also as a power of attorney holder for his wife, his all sons and daughter-in-law.

5. The arbitrators arrived at Jalgaon on 04.07.1996 and continued with the arbitration proceeding and passed the award on 07.07.1996 (with a mention of IMOU dated 29.06.1996) under which certain properties were given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel whereas some other assets were kept undivided with equal rights and interest thereon of both groups. The award was written in Gujarati language by hand by the arbitrators and signed by the arbitrators. The copy of the award was given to Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel by arbitrators in person which was duly acknowledged by them. Copy of the award bears signature of both Pravinchandra Patel and Anilkumar Patel with recital that they and their family members will act as per the award and will give effect to the same. Then by an award dated 03.11.1996, the issues between appellants and respondents were finally decided taking note of earlier awards. According to Pravincha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 251

IMPORTANT POINTLimitation period of three months u/s 34 cannot be condoned beyond thirty days.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation period of three months u/s 34 cannot be condoned beyond thirty days.