IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

th

ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 27 of 2014 THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Versus M/S SHAPERS CONSTRUCTION LTD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Mukund Agrawal - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State. Shri Shekhar Sharma - Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhay Pratap Singh -

Advocate and Shri Dhruv Singh - Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER By way of this appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, ( for short 'Act of 1996') challenge is made to the order of the District Court dated 19.03.2014 whereby the District Court has rejected the application of the appellant-State under Section 34 of Act of 1996 as being barred by time.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of present appeal are that the award was passed by the Arbitrator on 03.11.2012 and the said award was received by the State Government on 29.11.2012. Later on the application for setting aside the award under Section 34 was filed on 16-5- 2013. The State had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act contending therein that the application has been filed with delay because there was inter-departmental correspondence going on since 05.12.2012 and after getting permissions and contacting various offices ultimately the permission was granted on 01.04.2013 by the Secretary, PWD and the aforesaid permission was received by the concerned officer on 14.05.2013 and then the application was ultimately filed on

16.5.2013.

3. The admitted date of receipt of award is 29.11.2012 and as per the said date the limitation of 90 days got over on 28.02.2013 but even the permission was received after the said date that is on 08.04.13. The condonable period of further 30 days also got over on 28.03.2013 and therefore the application was utterly beyond the condonable period by as many as 48 days.

4. It is settled in law that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality (P) Ltd. vs. Faridabad Implements (P) Ltd., (2025) 6 SCC 481, has held that application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 must be filed within three months from the date of receipt of award and the Court's discretion to entertain the application is only for a further period of 30 days and not thereafter. The Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-

“17. From reading the provision, it is clear that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 must be within 3 months from the receipt of the award or the date of disposal of a request under Section 33. This is the period of limitation. [State of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006) 6 SCC 239, para 10; Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169, para 19.] Further, the Court may exercise discretion to entertain the application, within a further period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown, but not thereafter. [See State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 518, para 29 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 207].

21. The applicability of Sections 4 to 24, and the extent of their applicability and exclusion under Section 34(3), has been considered by this Court in several cases. It is useful to categorise these cases based on the provision of the Limitation Act under consideration therein.

22. In the leading judgment of Popular Construction [Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470] , this Court considered whether a court can condone delay beyond 30 days, as specified in the proviso to Section 34(3), by relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It considered the expression “but not thereafter” in the proviso to Section 34(3), which it held would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Hence, Section 5 would not apply