IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Singhal Credit Management LLP - Appellant
Versus
Religare Securities Ltd. - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 34 of 2022 & CM Appl. 11054 of 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2022
JUDGMENT
[Physical Court hearing/hybrid hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--We had heard the matter at some length on the first date i.e., 04.03.2022.
1.1. On that date i.e., 04.03.2022, we had recorded the relevant dates and events. The said order reads as follows:
"2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.11.2021, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.
2.1. Via this order, the learned District Judge dismissed the appellant's petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[in short, "the Act"].
3. The crucial dates, which are required to be noticed in the instant case, are the following:
(i) The arbitral award was rendered on 23.10.2012. This award, according to the appellant, was received in or around 30.10.2012.
(ii) The appellant instituted a petition under Section 34 of the Act, in the first instance, on 28.01.2013. This petition, however, was instituted in the District Court, Jaipur, in the State of Rajasthan.
(iii) The concerned court returned the petition to the appellant on 02.06.2018, with [the] liberty to file the same with the court of competent jurisdiction.
(iv) The appellant, concededly, applied for a certified copy of the order dated 02.06.2018, on 27.07.2018. A certified copy of the said order was received by the appellant on 02.08.2018.
(v) The appellant instituted a fresh petition under Section 34 of the Act, as noticed above, before the District Court, Patiala House Court, New Delhi on 29.09.2018.
4. Mr. Nityanand Singh, who appears on behalf of the appellant, says that he will persuade the court that the petition filed before the learned District Judge in New Delhi, was within time.
5. Since Mr. Singh is addressing arguments through [the] video-conferencing mechanism, and the audio is unclear, list the matter at his request on10.03.2022."
1.2. Thus, the issue that we are required to consider is simply this, whether the dismissal of the petitioner's petition, preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 [in short "the 1996 Act"] was tenable in law?
2. However, before we proceed further, some important parameters need to be set forth, as enunciated in law, to decide the issue at hand :
(i) Once limitation commences, it does not get interrupted.
(ii) The Limitation Act, 1963 (in short "the 1963 Act") is applicable to arbitration proceedings by virtue of Section 43 of the 1996 Act.
(iii) The limitation period prescribed for filing a petition under Section 34 of the 1996 Act, is three [3] months.
(iiia) Since the 1996 Act does not define the expression "month", the same will have the same meaning, as defined in Section 2(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The said section provides that the expression "month" means a month reckoned according to the British calendar. Where the period prescribed is a calendar month running from an arbitrary date, it expires with the day in the succeeding month immediately preceding the day, corresponding to the date upon which the period starts, save and except where the period starts at the end of the calendar month which contains more days than the succeeding month, the period expires at the end of the latter month. [See Halsbury's Laws of England Volume 37 (third edition) 1 .]
(iiib) However, the Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in State of H.P. v. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010)12 SCC 210, made the following observations with regard to how the terminal date of the three months timeframe should be ascertained :
"18. Therefore when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result, depending upon the months, it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days."
(iiic) The period of limitation commences from the date of receipt of the award, or if a request under
The limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is three months from the award's receipt, not interrupted once commenced.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation for filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should start running from the date whe....
The dismissal of a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration Act due to limitation bars examination of merits, reaffirming the critical nature of timely claims.
The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed as barred by limitation since filed after the three-month period following the award, with no eligibility for an extension under ....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the prescribed period for setting aside an award, the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the court's discretion to condone the delay ....
Limitation Act shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court.
The trigger point for commencing the limitation period under Section 34 of the 1996 Act is the date when the award is rendered, and insufficiency of stamp duty is not a ground for setting aside the a....
The trial court must ascertain the actual receipt date of the arbitral award to determine limitation status under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.