SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
The State of West Bengal represented through the Secretary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7426 of 2023
Decided On : 08-07-2024
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34(3) and 43 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 4 – Setting aside arbitral award – Limitation period – Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court – Period of limitation under Section 34 of Arbitration Act is of three months and not ninety days – Three months provided by way of limitation expired a day before commencement of Puja vacation – Prescribed period within meaning of Section 4 of Limitation Act ended before filing of petition – Appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 of Limitation Act – High Court was right in holding that petition filed by appellants under Section 34 of Arbitration Act was not filed within period specified under Section 34(3) – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
By impugned order dated 4th May 2023, High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act filed by appellants on the ground of bar of limitation. High Court held that period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 expired on 30th September 2022. Therefore, appellants are not entitled to benefit of Section 4 of Limitation Act of 1963.
Findings of Court:
Appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 of Limitation Act. As per proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34, period of limitation could have been extended by a maximum period of 30 days. Maximum period of 30 days expired on 30th October 2022. Petition was filed on 31st October 2022.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The first appellant – the State of West Bengal appointed the respondent as a contractor for the construction of a bridge. As there was a dispute between the parties, the respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the contract, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. On 30th June 2022, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,11,67,054.00 (Two Crores Eleven Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Fifty Four Rupees Only) to the respondent with interest thereon, as directed. The counter-claim made by the appellants was dismissed. The appellants received a copy of the award on the same day. The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta was closed for pooja vacation from 1st October 2022 to 30th October 2022 (both days inclusive). On 31st October 2022, the appellants filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Arbitration Act’) to challenge the award. By the impugned order dated 4th May 2023, the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellants on the ground of bar of limitation. The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 expired on 30th September 2022. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act of 1963 (for short, ‘the Limitation Act’).
2. Being aggrieved by the view taken by the High Court, the appellants are in this appeal. We may note here that under the impugned judgment, the High Court granted a certificate to prefer an appeal before this Court by exercising powers under Article 133 (1) and Article 134(A)(a) of the Constitution of India.
SUBMISSIONS
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that as the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act ought to have been calculated from 1st July 2022, the prescribed period of limitation ended on 1st October 2022, which was the first day of pooja vacation. Therefore, the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed immediately after the reopening of the Court on 31st October 2022 must be held to be within limitation. The learned counsel relied upon Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short, ‘the General Clauses Act’). The learned counsel also submitted that the petition could not be e-filed in pooja vacation as the relevant e-filing notification provided for e-filing of only urgent matters during the vacations. The learned counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 210.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the findings recorded by the High Court. He submitted that in any event, the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act is available only if the proceedings are filed within the prescribed period of limitation, which will be three months in this case in terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel relied upon a decision made by this court in the case of Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd., (2012) 2 SCC 624. He also invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Company, (2001) 8 SCC 470. He submitted that, as held by this Court in the said decision, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in view of the language used in the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34.
OUR VIEW
5. The facts are undisputed. The award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 30th June 2022 was served upon the appellant on the same day. Between 1st October 2022 and 30th October 2022 (both days inclusive), the High Court was closed for pooja vacation. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 31st October 2022.
6. The period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 of the
Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another
Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects & Mktg. Ltd.
Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court.
The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed as barred by limitation since filed after the three-month period following the award, with no eligibility for an extension under ....
The prescribed period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is three months, and the 30-day extension does not constitute part of this period.
The court emphasized the peremptory language of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement for sufficient cause to condone any delay in filing the application.
The Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the ACA, but the condonable period does not extend beyond 30 days when it expires during a court holiday.
The limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is three months from the award's receipt, not interrupted once commenced.
The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is inflexible, and applications filed beyond this period cannot be entertained.
Setting aside arbitral award – Period of limitation – Section 12(1) of Limitation Act, 1963 will apply.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.