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

2025 Supreme(SC) 84

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2025 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 9996 OF 2024)
Decided on : 10-01-2025.

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Harsh Kaushik, AOR Ms. Adrija Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Simran Mehta, Adv. Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.

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.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 34 and 37 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 4, 10, 12, 14, and 17 - Applicability of Limitation Act to Section 34 proceedings - Court held that the application under Section 34 was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days, which expired on 28.06.2022, during court vacation - The court clarified that Section 4 applies only to the 3-month limitation period, not the 30-day condonable period. (Paras 1, 35, 36, and 37)

(B) Limitation - The court emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of limitation statutes to avoid unduly restricting remedies available to parties in arbitration, while noting the stringent nature of the current legal position. (Paras 36.1-36.6)

JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

Table of Contents

1.

Introduction

2.

Facts

3.

Decision of the High Court under Section 34 and Section 37 of the ACA

4.

Submissions

5.

Issues

6.

Applicability of the Limitation Act to ACA

7.

Applicability of the Limitation Act to Section 34(3)

i. Section 5 of the Limitation Act

ii. Section 12 of the Limitation Act

iii. Section 14 of the Limitation Act

iv. Section 17 of the Limitation Act

v. Section 4 of the Limitation Act

8.

Applicability of Section 10 of the GCA

9.

Summarising the Current Position of Law

10.

Highlighting Certain Concerns with the Current Legal Position

11.

Conclusion

1. Introduction: Leave granted. Facts, to the extent that they are relevant for determining the issue of limitation for filing an application challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961[Hereinafter “ACA”.] are as follows. The appellants received the arbitral award on 14.02.2022. The 3- month limitation period for filing the application under Section 34(3) of the ACA expired on 29.05.2022, on which date the court was functioning, but closed after five days for vacation commencing from 04.06.2022 to 03.07.2022. The application under Section 34 was filed immediately on the court’s reopening, i.e. 04.07.2022. The High Court single judge under Section 34 and the High Court division bench under Section 37 dismissed the petition as barred by limitation. Under these circumstances, the issue before us is whether the benefit of the additional 30 days under the proviso to Section 34(3), which expired during the vacation, can be given when the petition is filed immediately after reopening in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 19632[Hereinafter “Limitation Act”.].

1.1 After considering Sections 34(3) and 43(1) of the ACA, Sections 4 and 29(2) of the Limitation Act and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 18973[Hereinafter “GCA”.], as well as precedents of this Court, we have answered the question in the negative and have dismissed the present appeal. While we have expressed certain concerns regarding the curtailment of a precious remedy to challenge an arbitral award due to a stringent construction of Section 4 of the Limitation Act vis-à-vis Section 34(3), we have held that in light of the current position of law, the Section 34 application preferred by the appellant is barred by limitation based on the following conclusions:

    (i) There is no wholesale exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act when calculating the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the ACA.

    (ii) Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA only to the extent when the 3-month period expires on a court holiday. It does not aid the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday.

    (iii) In view of the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act to Section 34 proceedings, Section 10 of the GCA does not apply and will not benefit the applicant when the 30- day condonable period expires on a court holiday.

2. Facts: The detailed facts leading up to the present appeal are as follows. The appellants entered into lease agreements with the respondent, who is the owner of the property. Pursuant to certain disputes, the respondent invoked arbitration and an arbitral award dated 04.02.2022 was made in its favour. The appellants received a scanned copy of the award by email on 04.02.2022 itself, and later received a signed hard copy of the award on 14.02.2022, from which day limitation must be calculated. The 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3), after considering the extension of limitation by operation of this Court’s order dated 10.01.2022 on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, 4[In Re: Cognizance of Extension of Limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petit

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 Back to top