Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Vikas Mahajan, JJ.
D. Suraj Kumar D.S Rao - Appellant
Versus
PNB Housing Finance Ltd. - Respondent
FAO (COMM) 174 of 2022 & CM. Appls. 50088-89 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. objections filed after statutory limitation. (Para 1) |
| 2. strict timelines for setting aside arbitration awards. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. meritorious objections not entertainable if out of time. (Para 5) |
| 4. appeal dismissed due to lack of merit. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. The appellants impugns the order dated 06.07.2022 whereby the objections filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) have been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Subject award was passed on 28.04.2018. As per the appellants, copy of the award was received on 27.11.2018 and subject objections have been filed on 13.06.2019 after 197 days i.e., much beyond the period of 120 days which is the maximum extendable period in terms of the Section 34 sub-section 3 of the Act.
2. The question that then arises for consideration is as to whether the Courts have the power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days and the extendable period of 30 days even for sufficient cause shown.
3. The Supreme Court in the case of Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. V. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 455 has held that an application for setting aside the award could be made within 3 months and the period can only be extended for a period of 30 days on sufficient cause being shown and not thereafter. The Supreme Court has held that the timelines are strict timelines and the delay beyond the extendable period of 30 days cannot be condoned.
4. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Chintels India Limited V. Bhayana Builders Private Limited, (2021) 4 SCC 602 that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to objections under Section 34 of the Act. Consequently in the instant case we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Trial Court that the period over and above, beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 34 of the Act could not be condoned.
5. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the award is erroneous on merits cannot be entertained, in view of the fact that the objections were filed belatedly.
6. In view of the above, we find no merit in the appeal, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
AI
The strict timelines for filing objections under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, preclude any condonation of delay beyond the specified limits, as established by precedent.
The Court emphasized the strict timelines for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that the delay beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned....
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....
The timelines for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are strict, and delays beyond the statutory periods cannot be condoned by courts, reaffirmed by Supreme Co....
The unambiguous language of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of the....
The 120-day period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award is absolute and unextendible by the court unde....
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
