Back
MANMOHAN, ASHA MENON
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.
2. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 16th February 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition preferred by the Appellant against the arbitral award was dismissed by the Single Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petition challenging the award was barred by limitation. He states that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate that due to the nationwide COVID 19 lockdown and subsequent delay by the office of the Sole Arbitrator, the signed copy of the Arbitral Award was received only on 14th July 2020 by the Appellant and the Petition challenging the award was filed on 19th August 2020. Consequently, according to him, the petition filed by the appellant was within the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
4. He also submits that the Single Judge erred in holding that the claim of the Respondent was not barred by time. He states that the Appellant communicated itsinability to supply the lubricants vide letter dated 19th June 2008 and the limitation for fi
Commercial unviability of a contract is not a valid ground to evade performance.
A rise in commodity prices does not frustrate a contract; parties must fulfill contractual obligations despite financial challenges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings and the significance of acknowledging claims to extend the period of limitat....
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period under the Arbitration Act and the requirement for parties to exercise their rights....
The judgment establishes the strict interpretation and application of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, emphasizing the requirement for sufficient cause and the mandat....
Scanned signed copy of the award/order of the Arbitral Tribunal to the parties would be a valid delivery as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is inflexible, and applications filed beyond this period cannot be entertained.
An application for arbitration is barred by limitation if filed beyond the three-year period stipulated, starting from the date the cause of action arose as determined by prior communications.
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
