The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to all proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and govern the period of limitation for filing an appeal against an order setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34.

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

The present Motion is for condoning a delay of sixty days in filing an Appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge arising out of a Petition for setting aside an arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. When the Motion came up on Board for hearing, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant relied on a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Jagson International Ltd. (2005(3) Mh.L.J. 1141)and urged that since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not prescribed any limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37(1)(b) against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral Award under Section 34, such an appeal would not be governed by the Limitation Act, 1963. On the basis of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in ONGC vs. Jagson International Ltd. it was sought to be urged that an appeal could be filed within a reasonable period of time. The Respondents have not appeared despite service of notice and an order of substituted service. Since the issue raises a matter of some importance, we requested Mr. Pravin Samdani, learned Senior Counsel to assist the Court as amicus curiae.

2. Before we deal with the issue which arises in these proceedings, it will be necessary, at the outset, to notice the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Jagson International Ltd. (supra). In that case, an appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17. An objection was raised to the maintainability of the appeal. The learned Single Judge held that Parliament was cognizant of the necessity of providing a period of limitation and whenever it found it necessary to so provide, specific provisions were made in the Act such as in Section 34 as well as in Sections 11, 13 and 16. However, the Single Judge held that while providing an appeal under Section 37, Parliament did not provide any period of limitation. Moreover, the Single Judge held that there was no provision in the Limitation Act, 1963 for providing a period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37. The Single Judge held as follows:

“Perusal of Section 37 also shows that there is no period of limitation laid down for filing an appeal under that provision. Perusal of the provision of Section 34 shows that there is a clear provision made for filing an application under that provision for challenging an award made by the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, when the Legislature provided the remedy against the arbitral award, it also provided a period of limitation for making an application under Section 34. Perusal of the provisions of Section 11, Section 13 and Section 16 show that the Legislature has mentioned a period of time for taking various steps. Therefore, it is clear that while the Legislature was aware of the necessity of providing a period of limitation and wherever the Legislature thought that providing a period of limitation is necessary it has been so provided for by various provisions of the Act. However, while providing an appeal under Section 37, the Legislature has chosen not to prescribe any period of limitation. In this view of the matter, therefore, in my opinion, the Court will not be justified in importing the period of limitation provided by Section 34 for filing an application and making it applicable to an appeal filed under Section 37. Sub-section 1 of Section 43 makes the provisions of Limitation Act applicable to arbitration as it applies to proceedings in Court. Perusal of the provisions of the Limitation Act also shows that the Limitation Act does not provide for any period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 37. It is second Division of the Schedule to the Limitation Act which deals with appeal. Perusal of those provisions show that Articles 114 and 115 lays down period