Date
Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Vikranthi Foundations, Rep. by its Partner, Ajeeth - Appellant
Versus
Orient Builders, Rep. by its Managing Partner, Jose Thomas - Respondent
A. Nos. 3370 & 3371 of 2023 in Arb. O.P. Dr. No. 56125 of 2022
Decided On : 21-09-2023
Limitation Act - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - [DELAY CONDONATION] - [Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 34(3)] - The court discussed the applicability of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to condone delay applications filed to condone the delay in re-filing. The court held that the provision does not apply to delay in re-filing and dismissed the applications seeking to condone the delay in representing the petition and in paying the court fees.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed an application under Order XIV rule 8 of the Original Side Rules R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application in Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) D. No.56125 of 2022. The court considered whether the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in paying the deficit court fee could be condoned.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in re-filing the petition and in paying the court fees could not be condoned. It held that the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not apply to delay in re-filing and dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay.
Issues: The court considered whether the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in paying the deficit court fee could be condoned. It also examined whether sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply to delay in re-filing and dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay. It emphasized that the object of the Act would be defeated if such applications were entertained.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications seeking to condone the delay in re-filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and in paying the deficit court fee. It found no merit in the applications and dismissed them.
JUDGMENT
(Prayers in A. No.3370 of 2023: Application filed under Order XIV rule 8 of the Original Side Rules R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the application D. No.57701 of 2023 in Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) D. No.56125 of 2022.
In A. No.3371 of 2023:Application filed under Order XIV rule 8 of the Original Side Rules R/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 54 days in filing the application D. No.57712 of 2023 in Arbitration Original Petition (Commercial Division) D.No.56125 of 2022.)
Common Order:
1. The issue that arises for consideration in this matter is whether the learned Master was right in dismissing the applications filed by the applicant a) seeking to condone the delay of 191 days in representing the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; seeking to condone the delay of 211 days in paying the Deficit Court fee of Rs.1,00,000/- and b) as to whether the rigours of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which prescribes the limitation period for filing Section 34 applications is also applicable to condone delay applications filed to condone the delay in re-filing.
2. Apart from the above issues, this Court will also have to decide as to whether sufficient cause has been shown by the applicant for condoning the delay of 54 days in filing the applications aggrieved by the common order of the learned Master, dated 21.02.2023, dismissing the applications filed to condone the delay in re-presenting the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as well as filed to condone the delay of 211 days in paying the deficit court fee of Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. For deciding the case on hand, the following dates and events are just and necessary to be noted :-
| S. No. | Date | Event |
| i | 13.10.2021 | Learned Sole Arbitrator passes Arbitral Award in Arbitration Case (MHC) No.2 of 2019, A.F. No.88 of 2019 |
| ii | 13.12.2021 | The Applicant herein receives the above said Arbitral Award along with the corrected copy (corrigendum) dated 20.10.2021. |
| iii | 06.06.2022 | Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022 was filed by the Applicant herein u/s. 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (without paying the entire Court Fee, and without filing any Application under S. 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure for making up deficiency of Court Fee) before this Hon'ble Court to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 13.10.2022 |
| iv | 13.06.2022 | The above stated Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022 was returned by the Registry for certain corrections including the non-payment of the entire Court Fee. |
| v | 30.06.2022 | The outer limit for filing an Application to set aside an Arbitral Award (3 months with 30 days of condonable delay) as provided by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, expires. |
| vi | 19.01.2023 | The Applicant herein re-files /re-presents the returned Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022, with two Applications (filed on 20.01.2023) under Order XIV, R. 10(1) of the Original side Rules of the Madras High Court, 1994(hereinafter referred to as the OS rules)- a) A. No.507 of 2023 in Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022 -To condone the delay of 191 days in re-presenting Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022 b) A. No.509 of 2023 in Arb. O.P. (D) No.56125 of 2022 - To condone the delay of 211 days in paying the deficit court fee of Rs.1,00,000/- |
| vii | 21.02.2023 | The learned Master dismisses the above stated applications as devoid of merits. |
| viii | 24.04.2023 | Appeals (SR) No.57701 and 57712 of 2023 are filed by the Applicant herein before this Hon'ble Court under Order XIV, R.12 of the OS Rules, aga |
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not apply to delay in re-filing the petition and in paying the court fees, an....
The law of limitation aims to prevent outdated, fictitious, or fraudulent claims and requires parties to exercise their rights within the prescribed time. The Court emphasized the need for due dilige....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act refers to three calendar months, and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation A....
Delay beyond 120 days (90+30) in Section 34 petitions or corresponding appeals under Section 37 of Arbitration Act not condonable via Limitation Act Section 5; negligence, inaction, lack of bonafides....
The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence and dispatch in exercising the right to challenge an Arbitral Award within the prescribed time, as per the provisions of the Arbitration Act.
Point of Law : If the extended/discretionary/condonable period of 30 days as contemplated in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the said Act of 1996 expires on a day on which the court is closed, a part....
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 judgment establishes the principle that inordinate delay in refiling an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act without sufficient justification cannot be condoned.
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