The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which governs the period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside an arbitral award.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 02.07.2019 rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three arbitrators (hereafter 'the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The disputes between the parties, essentially, arise from the Binding Settlement Agreement dated 05.04.2016 (hereafter 'the BSA'). By the impugned award, the Arbitral Tribunal has awarded damages quantified at ?4,795,079,144/-; costs quantified at ?59,829,209/-; and interest on the awarded amounts at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment, in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 6.

3. The petitioner claims that the impugned award to the extent it makes him liable to pay the awarded amount is, ex facie, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the BSA. It is his case that the BSA expressly provides that certain other individuals and him, shall not be personally liable for the obligations stipulated under the BSA. Therefore, in terms of the BSA, he could not be made liable for any monetary damages awarded against other corporate entities. More so, as respondent nos. 1 to 6 (the claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal) had specifically given up their claim to lift the corporate veil and impute the corporate liability on the shareholders/promoters of the corporate entities.

4. The preliminary question to be addressed is whether the present petition is barred by limitation. There are several parts to this issue. First, relates to the time available for filing the petition. Second, relates to whether in the facts of this case, time available for filing the petition is to be computed from disposal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 33 of the A&C Act. The third aspect to be considered is whether the delay, if any, can be condoned by this Court and, if so, whether there are sufficient reasons to do so.

RE: THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION:

5. In terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act is required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award. In terms of the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, the court may entertain an application within a period of further thirty days subject to it being satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making an application within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the arbitral award.

6. In the present case, the impugned award was made on 02.07.2019 and the petitioner claims that he received it on 11.07.2019. Thus, the present petition could be filed within a period of three months from the said date, that is, on or before 11.10.2019.

7. However, on 01.08.2019, Mr Nirmal Singh (arrayed as respondent no. 35 before the Arbitral Tribunal) filed an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act before the Arbitral Tribunal, inter alia, claiming as under:-

'The applicant submits and prays that the aforesaid errors in paras 74 & 141 of the Arbitral Award dated 02.07.2019 be corrected holding that the reference to the respondents in paras 74 & 141 excludes Respondent No.35 Mr. Nirmal Singh along with LG Respondents.'

8. The said applicant (Mr Nirmal Singh) claimed that in terms of Clause 21 of the BSA, he could not be made personally liable for failure to perform any obligations under the BSA. According to him, his position was similar to respondent nos. 16, 22, 23, 24, and 38 before the Arbitral Tribunal (referred to as 'LG respondents' in the impugned award) as they too were not personally liable in terms of Clause 21 of the BSA. Whilst the impugned award granted the benefit of the said clause to the LG respondents, it failed to specifically include him even though he was covered under the said clause. The said applicant (Mr Nirmal Singh) also contended that there was no specific finding against him. It is relevant to