Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Saltee Productions Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Indus Towers Limited – Respondents
CO 3521 of 2023
Decided on : 17-05-2024
Arbitration - Setting Aside Award - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 33, 34 - The court interpreted the starting point of limitation for setting aside an arbitral award, emphasizing that it begins from the disposal of a request under Section 33, not from the receipt of the award.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an arbitral award, which was admitted after condoning a delay in filing. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the starting point of limitation for setting aside an arbitral award is the date of disposal of a request under Section 33, and the time taken to communicate this decision should be excluded from the limitation period.
Issues: Whether the time taken by the arbitrator to communicate the decision on a request under Section 33 should be excluded while computing the limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the limitation for setting aside an arbitral award begins from the disposal of the request under Section 33, and the time taken for communication of this decision is excluded from the limitation period.
Result: The civil revision application is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the respondent no. 1 in Misc Arbitration case no. 10 of 2023 and is directed against the order no. 8 dated August 25, 2023 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court of Rajarhat.
2. By the impugned order, the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the opposite party no. 1 herein stood admitted after condonation of delay in filing the said application. The preliminary objection on the point of limitation was rejected.
3. The learned Arbitrator passed an Award on July 28, 2022. Subsequently, the respondents therein filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “A&C Act”) praying for correction of the Arbitral Award. The said application was allowed vide order dated October 14, 2022. The certified copy of the Arbitral Award was corrected on December 14, 2022. The application under Section 34 of the A & C Act being Misc (Arb) Case 10 of 2023 (C.C.) was filed on February 16, 2023 by the opposite party no. 1 herein.
4. The opposite party no. 1 herein filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the application for setting aside the Arbitral Award.
5. By the impugned order the learned Judge of the Commercial Court condoned the delay subject to payment of cost.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent no. 1 in the Misc (Arb) case filed this Civil Revision application.
7. Mr. Karmakar, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the starting point of limitation for filing an application for setting aside arbitral award would be the date of disposal of the request for correction of the award and not the date when the certified copy of the Award was corrected. He further submitted that the date of receipt of the order passed by the learned Arbitrator on an application under Section 33 of the A & C Act cannot also be considered to be the starting point of limitation for filing an application for setting aside the Arbitral Award. In support of such contention he placed reliance upon Section 34(3) of the A & C Act and a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in DM. Jawahar Merican vs. Engineer India Ltd. reported at AIR 2009 Delhi 41. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons vs. Union of India reported at 2018 SCC Online SC 3181 in support of his aforesaid contention.
8. Mr. Sen, learned counsel representing the opposite party no. 1 raised an objection as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision application in view of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. In support of such contention, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Puri and Another vs. S. Suncon Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and Another reported at 2021 SCC Online Delhi 5220. He also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ark Builders reported at (2011) 4 SCC 616 in support of his contention that the period of limitation can commence from the date on which the order of the Arbitrator was received by the party. Mr. Sen contended that the starting point of limitation for filing the application for setting aside the Arbitral Award would be the date of correction of the certified copy of the Award in view of the direction contained in the order dated 14th October, 2022. He contended that the date of correction of the certified copy of the Award was 14th December, 2022 and if the same is accepted to be the starting point, the Misc (Arb) case was well within the period of three months.
9. Mr. Sen contended that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed by way of abundant caution in case the date of communication of the order disposing of the request under Section 33 is treated to be the starting
The limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award starts from the disposal of a request under Section 33, excluding the time taken for communication of that decision.
The limitation period for setting aside an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act begins from the disposal date of a correction application and not from the award's date, affirming....
Setting aside arbitral award – Limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can start only from the date on which proceedings under Section 33 are disposed of.
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.
Arbitral Award – Limitation – S. 34(3) specifically states that an application for setting aside may not be made after three months have lapsed from date of which party making an application had rece....
The court upheld limitations on condonation applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
