Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
M/s Romesh Power Products Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant - Appellant
Versus
M/s Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another - Respondents - Respondent
FAO No. 7458 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Section 34 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing objections under Section 34 of the Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after gaining knowledge of an ex-parte award, accompanied by an application for condoning delay of 643 days. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the present appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in filing objections under Section 34 of the Act, based on the unambiguous language of Section 34(3) of the Act. Citing relevant case law, the court concluded that delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of the limitation period cannot be condoned.
Issues: Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the unambiguous language of Section 34(3) of the Act and relevant case law to exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and establish that delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of the limitation period cannot be condoned.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the pending application, if any, was rendered infructuous.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. Aggrieved of dismissal of objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act'), the appellant is in appeal under Section 37 of the Act.
2. The brief facts are that the dispute between the parties was referred to an arbitrator which culminated in ex-parte award dated 15.7.2010. During execution proceedings, in January, 2011 the appellant gained knowledge of the ex-parte award and filed objection in the execution petition. On 19.4.2012, objections under Section 34 of the Act accompanied with an application for condoning delay of 643 days was filed. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed on 2.4.2014. The court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay was unintentional. The appellant came to know of the ex-parte award in January, 2011 and on receiving copy of award filed objections in the execution petition. It is contended that the appellant after pursuing objections in execution petition, filed application under Section 34 of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 defends the impugned order. She relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ms Popular Construction Co., AIR 2001 SC 4011.
5. It is not disputed that the appellant gained knowledge of the ex-parte award in January, 2011 and also received the copy of the award. Even if the limitation is taken from January, 2011, the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed beyond the period of 120 days i.e. 90 days of limitation and 30 days period which can be condoned under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act.
6. There is no dispute on the proposition of law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in view of the unambiguous language of Section 34(3) of the Act.
7. The Supreme Court in Ms Popular Construction Co.'s case (supra) and M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and others, (2008) 7 SCC 169 held that applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act and that delay beyond 30 days after expiry of limitation period cannot be condoned.
8. No interference is called for with the impugned order.
9. The appeal is dismissed.
10. Since the main appeal is dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
Appeal dismissed.
AI
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 main legal point established is that the extendable period of 30 days under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not the period of limitation, and the benefit of limitation on ac....
The limitation for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
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'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 court emphasized the peremptory language of section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the requirement for sufficient cause to condone any delay in filing the application.
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....
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
