Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Surpreet Singh Suri - Appellant
Versus
Horizon Crest India Real Estate - Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 186 of 2021, IA Nos. 7688 of 2021, 7689 of 2021, 7690 of 2021 & 17503 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to arbitral award under section 34. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prior decisions affirm limitation grounds. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petition dismissed based on prior rulings. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34of 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 petitioner had claimed that the impugned award dated 02.07.2019 was not served upon him and he became aware of the impugned award on 30.07.2019 when the Horizon Group filed a petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act [being OMP (I) (COMM) 217/2019].
3. Thereafter, on 22.08.2019, the petitioner filed an application before the learned Arbitral Tribunal seeking correction of the award. In addition to the petitioner, respondent nos. 34, 35, and 37 had also filed applications under Section 33 of the A&C Act. The Arbitral Tribunal considered the applications filed under Section 33 of the A&C Act and by a common order dated 20.11.2019, it disposed of the petitioner's application as being barred by limitation. The Arbitral Tribunal also held that the impugned award was duly served upon all the concerned parties.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmal Singh v. Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors., OMP (COMM) 434/2020, decided on 24.07.2020, had dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act by Mr. Nirmal Singh (respondent no. 35 before the Arbitral Tribunal) challenging the impugned award. The Court, inter alia, rejected the contention that the period of three months was required to be computed from the date of the order of the Arbitral Tribunal (20.11.2019) rejecting Mr. Nirmal Singh's application under Section 33 of the A&C Act. The Court was of the view that Mr. Nirmal Singh's application could not be construed as an application under Section 33 of the A&C Act.
5. Concededly, the controversy raised in the present petition is also covered by the decision of this Court in Vidhur Bharadwaj v. Horizon Crest India Real Estate and Ors., OMP (COMM) 436/2020. This Court has dismissed the said petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act challenging the impugned award on the ground of limitation.
6. In view of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Nirmal Singh v. Horizon Crest India Real Estate & Ors. (supra) and by this Court in Vidhur Bharadwaj v. Horizon Crest India Real Estate and Ors. (supra), the present petition is also, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Challenges to arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act must be filed within three months of the award's communication, as precedential rulings confirm strict adherence to limitation periods.
An application challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act must be filed within three months of receiving the award, extendable by thirty days only if suffi....
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 filin....
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.
An arbitral award remains valid despite insufficient stamping; however, limitations under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act must be adhered to, and delay beyond the specified period cannot be condoned.
Statutory limitations under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act are strict; applications for setting aside arbitral awards cannot be entertained if filed beyond the designated timeframe.
The requirement of meaningful service of summons, timeliness of filing applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and the precedent that a party cannot file such applicatio....
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is strict and non-extendable, emphasizing the need for timely recourse to mai....
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the period of limitation under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, as established by the judgment of the Supreme Court....
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
