Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.K. SEMA, P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
Union of India & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bhavna Engineering Co. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3736 of 2005
Decided on : 14-09-2006
Limitation Act - Applicability in Arbitration Proceedings - The court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings, and condoned the delay in the Section 34 Application.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the order of the High Court affirming the dismissal of a Section 34 Application as barred by limitation in arbitral proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in arbitral proceedings, and condoned the delay. It also directed the transfer of the Section 34 Application to the Bombay High Court for expeditious decision.
Issues: Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in arbitral proceedings, transfer of the Section 34 Application to the Bombay High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the recent judgment in State of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006) 6 SCC 239, which established the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in arbitral proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Section 34 Application was directed to be transferred to the Bombay High Court for expeditious decision.
JUDGMENT :
H.K. Sema, J.
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11/01/2005 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior passed in Writ Petition No. 1106/2004 affirming the order of Sixth Additional District Judge, Gwalior dismissing Section 34 Application as being barred by limitation. Both the Additional District Judge and the High Court has held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in short 'the Act', is not applicable in arbitral proceedings.
2. This Court in a recent judgment rendered in State of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006) 6 SCC 239, held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in the Arbitration and Conciliation proceedings. Having gone through the various facts, we are of the view that the mistake committed by the appellant in approaching the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Bombay High Court is bona fide.
3. We, therefore, condone the delay. In the facts of this case and in the interest of justice, we, however, think it proper that the Section 34 Application pending before the Additional District Judge, Gwalior be transferred to the Bombay High Court. The application will be decided on merits expeditiously.
4. Parties are at liberty to urge all the contentions before that Court.
5. Interim order passed by this Court shall continue for six months.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is allowed.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
