IMPORTANT POINT
Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in arbitration appeal.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.—This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning the judgment of the court below dated 17.12.2016 which has allowed the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the respondent herein, and which company was the objector in the proceedings in the court below under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the respondent should not get the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act with respect to the arbitration proceedings which has resulted in the award dated 19.3.2014.

2. The facts of the case are that appellant was the customer of the respondent in the F&O segment of the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE). With respect to the security transactions conducted in the trading account of the appellant, disputes arose with the respondent, and resultantly the respondent herein preferred an arbitration claim before the NSE. The present appellant, who was the respondent in the court below, had filed claim for a sum of Rs.14,67,138.95/-. The present appellant, who was respondent in the court below, filed a counter-claim in the arbitration proceedings for a sum of Rs.34,11,500/-. In these arbitration proceedings on the joint request made by both the parties and with the consent of both the parties an order dated 10.3.2010 was passed giving liberties to the parties to invoke the civil jurisdiction of the competent court and the arbitration proceedings stood disposed of accordingly.

3. As a result of the order passed in the arbitration proceedings giving liberty to approach the civil court, the present respondent therefore moved the High Court of Mumbai and in which proceedings the appellant also participated. This suit was disposed of by the High Court of Mumbai in terms of its order dated 22.6.2012 whereby the parties were directed either to continue with the previous arbitration proceedings which were withdrawn or parties were at liberty to initiate a fresh arbitration proceedings before the NSE.

4. As a result of the order of the High Court of Mumbai dated 22.6.2012 fresh arbitration proceedings were initiated under the aegis of NSE wherein the respondent filed its claim petition for its unpaid dues. The arbitrator dismissed the arbitration proceedings as being time barred by refusing to give the benefit of the period spent before the High Court of Mumbai being the period from 21.7.2010 till 22.6.2012 and resultantly the fresh arbitration claim filed being beyond the period of three years was held to be time barred and accordingly dismissed.

5. The point of consideration before this Court, as also before the Court below, was whether the respondent herein should have got the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period of pendency of proceedings before the High Court of Mumbai, and which benefit if given the arbitration proceedings filed for the second time under the aegis of NSE would have been within limitation.

6. The court below has set aside the award dismissing the claim of the respondent as time barred by making the following observations in paras 13 to 18 of the impugned order, and which read as under:-

“13. Further, it is settled law that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the period from the date of filing suit/petition before the Court not having jurisdiction till the disposal should be excluded from the period of limitation. In the present case, the suit was filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay Court and vide order dated 22.06.2012, the said suit was ordered to be disposed of for want of jurisdiction. Vide order dated 22.06.2012 passed in Suit No. 2362 of 2010 in which the petitioner and respondent were parties, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that:

11. It may be mentioned that merely because leave is applied for and granted in various suits even if the entire cause of action arose within this jurisdiction, leave does not beco