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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Indira Banerjee, Sahidullah Munshi, JJ.
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
R. Piyarelall Import and Export Ltd. - Respondent
G.A. No. 2518 of 201, A.P.O.T. No. 337 of 2015 and A.P. No. 174 of 2015
Decided On : 28-08-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Raja Basu Chowdhury and Tapas Kumar Majumdar, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ratnanko Banerjee, Sr. Advocate

The limitation period for filing an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 starts running from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award, and a certified photocopy of the original award along with the photocopied signatures of the arbitrator, duly certified by an authorized office bearer of the institution conducting the arbitration, would satisfy the requirement of Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act.

Headnote:

ARBITRATION - LIMITATION - SECTION 34(3) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE AWARD - WHETHER LIMITATION STARTS RUNNING FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF A SIGNED COPY OF THE AWARD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 31(5) OF THE 1996 ACT.

Fact of the Case:

Appellant challenged an arbitral award passed against it on 21st February 2014, as rectified on 4th March 2014. The appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) for setting aside the award on 9th February 2015, which was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was barred by limitation as the delay in filing the application was not condonable beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Section 34 application.

Issues: 1. Whether the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act starts running from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award? 2. Whether a certified photocopy of the original award along with the photocopied signatures of the arbitrator would suffice as a 'signed copy' under Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The limitation period for filing an application under Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act starts running from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award. 2. A certified photocopy of the original award along with the photocopied signatures of the arbitrator, duly certified by an authorized office bearer of the institution conducting the arbitration, would satisfy the requirement of Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as the application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act was barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Indira Banerjee, J.

This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 29th June, 2015 passed by the learned Single Bench rejecting the application filed by the appellant, being AP No. 174 of 2015, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1996 Act', for setting aside an award, made by an arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators of the Indian Council of Arbitration, on 21st February, 2014, in arbitration of disputes between the appellant and the respondent, as rectified by an order dated 4th March, 2014.

2. The said application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act has been rejected on the ground that it had filed beyond a period of three months and thirty days from the date of receipt of the award, as corrected.

3. Section 34(3) provides as follows:-

"An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal :

Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."

4. The award as corrected was received by the appellant on 18th March, 2014. On 18th July, 2014 the appellant filed an application in Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, challenging the said award. The said application was, however, dismissed by an order dated 11th November, 2014 on the ground that Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said application. A certified copy of the said order dated 11th November, 2014 was received by the appellant on 25th November, 2014.

5. On 9th February, 2015, that is, about two and half months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order dated 11th November, 2014 of the Delhi High Court dismissing the said application, the appellant filed an application in this Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the award, which has given rise to the judgment and order under appeal.

6. As noted by the learned Single Bench, the appellant had filed an application under Section 34 in the Delhi High Court, after a lapse of almost three months and thirty days from the date of receipt of the corrected award, or may be, a day short thereof. The Delhi High Court dismissed the application on 11th November, 2014.

7. Even if the time between the date of filing of the setting aside application in the Delhi High Court, and the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of the Delhi High Court, dismissing the said application is excluded, even then the application in this Court should have been filed, not later than on 26th November, 2014.

8. In view of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act, delay beyond three months and thirty days, in filing an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, for setting aside an award, cannot be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

9. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as follows :-

"Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law."

10. The 1996 Act is a special law and Section 34 thereof provides for a period of limitation different from that prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963 as observed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular



































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