Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
National Highways Authority of India – Appellant
Versus
Patel-KNR(JV) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--This petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') challenging the Arbitral Award dated 26.05.2018 limited to the extent of claim nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 thereof.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised the objection on the maintainability of the present petition, claiming that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 34(3) of the Act. He submits that though the petition was originally filed on 24.08.2018, the same was a non-est filing. He submits that, thereafter, the petition was re-filed on 28.11.2018, that is, beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act and even beyond the maximum condonable period of delay as provided in the Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in the hearing held on 24.01.2023, had submitted that the petition was re-filed by the petitioner on 25.09.2018, which would be within the maximum period by which delay can be condoned by this Court. He submits that, therefore, even if the filing made on 24.08.2018 is treated to b
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition challenging an Arbitral Award must be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and C....
The failure to file essential documents alongside a Section 34 application renders the filing 'non-est', thus failing to stop the limitation period, leading to dismissal of the petition.
An application to set aside an arbitral award must adhere strictly to procedural requirements, failing which it may be deemed non-est, thereby barring the challenge by limitation.
The Court emphasized the importance of diligence in addressing procedural defects and allowed the condonation of delay based on the petitioner's consistent efforts to rectify the objections.
The court ruled that statutory timelines under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are strict and failure to properly file within these limits results in dismissal as barred by limitation.
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.
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
