A pending application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, affects the computation of the limitation period for filing an application under Section 34, but it does not constitute a legal bar against preferring an application to challenge the award under Section 34.

ORDER

The revision petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated by the respondent for execution of the award dated 08.09.2023 passed by the Arbitrator in ARC No.1/2020. Copy of the award is stated to have been received on 16.09.2023. It is stated that the respondent filed an application on 15.10.2023, under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) seeking a direction for awarding cost of ₹2,30,0000/-, along with a cost memo. The application was kept pending by the Arbitrator. On 06.11.2023 another application was filed by the respondent under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking permission to dispose of the materials which are remaining with them. According to the petitioner, the materials which are remaining with the respondent were included in the claim before the Arbitrator, and were allowed, though the materials had not been supplied. Petitioners filed an objection to the correction petition on 14.12.2023. It is admitted by both sides that no orders have been passed by the Arbitrator on both the petitions. On 20.12.2023, the claimant filed execution petition. Revision petitioner filed objections. By the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, the Commercial Court has allowed the execution petition and directed payment. This revision petition has been filed in the above circumstances.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that since the petition was filed under Section 33 they were precluded from challenging the order under Section 34 of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Geojit Financial Services Ltd. V. Sandeep Gurav (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1811) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if an application is filed under Section 33, whether or not the same is allowed, the period of limitation for filing a Section 34 application will start running after the disposal of the application under Section 33. The judgment speaks only about extension of the period of limitation. It does not speak about any bar to prefer an application under Section 34. Reference is also made to the judgment in National Highway Authority of India V. T.Younis & Anr. [judgment dated 2.6.2026 in SLP(C)No.7570 of 2024] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the proposition that for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, it is the date of the disposal of the application under 33. The above judgments do not have any bearing on the facts of this case.

3. In the above view of the matter, it is open to the petitioner to file an application under Section 34 and seek necessary orders regarding the stay of execution. This Court had at the time of admission of this civil revision petition granted an interim order staying the order dated 11.04.2025 passed by the II Additional Commercial Court, Thiruvananthapuram in E.P.No.310/2023 and ARC No.1/2020. Interests of justice will be served if this civil revision petition is disposed of extending the interim order granted for a reasonable time to facilitate the petitioner to challenge the award under Section 34.

In the above circumstances, this civil revision petition is disposed of extending the interim order granted by this Court on 01.07.2025 till 19.06.2026, by which time, the petitioner may seek necessary orders from the appropriate authority.