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.
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:
(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
Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subhash Projects & Marketing Limited
Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited
Union of India v. Popular Construction
Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Pvt Ltd
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil
Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department
Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker
Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Excise & Taxation Officer
State of Goa v. Western Builders
State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.
Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra
Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt Ltd, (2009) 5 SCC 791
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers
Gulbarga University v. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali
Coal India Limited v. Ujjal Transport Agency
Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohanlal and Company
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.
Setting aside arbitral award – Computation of limitation period – Benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed shall be available when application for setting aside award is filed with....
The limitation period for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond specified timelines, maintaining strict adherence to legal provisions.
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
The period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, as the Act is a self-contained special law and t....
The interpretation of 'three months' in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is clarified to mean three calendar months, not strictly 90 days.
The court determined that delay in filing a Section 34 application was justifiable due to the appellant's prior bona fide pursuit of a Writ Petition and the impact of COVID-19 on limitation periods.
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.