Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANIL KSHETARPAL, AMIT MAHAJAN
Deepak Builders And Engineers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37 , [ ] of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act], the Appellant assails the correctness of the judgment dated 16.05.2024 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’], passed in ARBTN-248/18, whereby the learned District Judge allowed the Petition filed by the Respondent under Section 34 , [ ] of the A&C Act [hereinafter referred to as ‘ Petition’] and set aside the Arbitral Award dated 13.07.2018 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Award’] passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.
2. The learned District Judge, by way of the Impugned Order, has held that the Award suffers from patent illegality on account of the claims being barred by limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act
3. Accordingly, the principal issue which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the learned District Judge was justified in interfering with the Award under Section 34 on the ground of limitation, particularly in the absence of a timely objection before the learned Arbitrator.
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present Appeal, the relevant facts, in brief,
Claims in arbitration must adhere to statutory limitation periods; failure to comply renders them non-maintainable, emphasizing the strict nature of limitation under arbitration law.
The court affirmed that claims in arbitration must be asserted within the limitation period, and undue delays in invoking arbitration can render claims invalid.
Arbitral awards are upheld where the claims are barred by pre-existing certificates and where the burden of proof lies with the claimant to substantiate additional work claims.
The statutory limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is inflexible, and applications filed beyond this period cannot be entertained.
The limitation period for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond specified timelines, maintaining strict adherence to legal provisions.
The court emphasized that judicial interference with arbitral awards is strictly limited, focusing only on issues of public policy or jurisdictional errors and cannot re-evaluate the merits of the aw....
The court affirmed that a promise to pay a time-barred debt under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act can revive the claim, and the Arbitrator's findings were not subject to re-evaluation under ....
The period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period, as the Act is a self-contained special law and t....
The interpretation of 'three months' in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is clarified to mean three calendar months, not strictly 90 days.
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
