Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Indira Gandhi National Open University – Appellant
Versus
Sharat Das And Associates Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral) - The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act'), impugning a judgment dated 04.06.2020 (hereafter `impugned judgment'), rendered by the learned Single Judge in OMP(COMM) 26/2019, captioned as Indira Gandhi National Open University v. M/s. Sharat Das and Associates Pvt. Ltd..
2. By the impugned judgment, the appellant's application under Section 34 of the A&C Act assailing an arbitral award dated 25.04.2018 (hereafter `the impugned award'), was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.
3. It is not disputed that the impugned award was rendered on 25.04.2018 and delivered on the same date.
4. In terms of Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, the time available for the appellant to file an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act expired on 24.07.2018. Admittedly, the appellant filed an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act (CIS-ARBTN-233-2018 captioned Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) v. M/s. Sharat Das & Associates Pvt. Ltd.) before the learned Commercial Court on the last da
The judgment established the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in justifying the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and highlighted the discretion o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act refers to three calendar months, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation A....
The judgment establishes the principle that inordinate delay in refiling an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without sufficient justification cannot be condoned.
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must be complete and timely; failure to include required documents leads to dismissal as barred by limitation.
The court emphasized the strict timelines prescribed in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the Limitation Act, and held that delays beyond the statutory periods cannot be condoned.
Filing requirements under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must be strictly adhered to; failure to do so renders filings non est and unable to stop limitation periods from running.
The law of limitation aims to prevent outdated, fictitious, or fraudulent claims and requires parties to exercise their rights within the prescribed time. The Court emphasized the need for due dilige....
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
