Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SANGEETA SHARMA, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Anamika Conductors Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Se (Mm) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. timeline of arbitration dispute and procedural closure. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contention on limitation considering delays. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. clarification on section 34(3) enforcement. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. negation of argument on dies non applicability. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. rejection of reliance on previous judgments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final dismissal of appeals. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. In both the appeals, the challenge is to the judgment passed by the learned Commercial Court-II, Jaipur Metro-II, whereby the objections raised under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’), were rejected by the learned Commercial Court on the ground that the same had been raised beyond period of limitation, as provided for filing objections in terms of Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996.
3. Brief facts which have come up before us are that the appellant had initially raised a dispute and in terms of Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short ‘MSMED Act’) preferred an application before the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, Jaipur (for short ‘Council’) claiming compound
Limitations under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are strict, and additional proceedings or negotiations do not extend the prescribed three-month period for filing objections.
The Court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient cause for delay in filing Objections under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and highlighted the inflexibility of the limitation period.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the absolute and unextendible nature of the time-limit prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an aw....
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 ....
Point of Law : Even if the period of delay is considered to be of 21 days. Since Section 34(3) of the Act, 1996 bars condonation of delay beyond the period of 30 days after the period of 3 months is ....
The scope of interference in an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited and narrow. The Courts shall not sit in an appeal while adjudicating a challen....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for challenging an award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is strict and cannot be extended be....
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
