Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1527 - HC - Indian LawsDelay of 166 days in filing Objections - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Statutory period of limitation of three months and thirty days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act - Jurisdiction to condone delay in re-filing - Held that:- A plain reading of section 34(3) of the Act indicates that the period of limitation prescribed is with respect to making an application for setting aside an award and not in respect of further steps once such an application is made. Thus, there is no time specified in the Act, in respect of re-filing of an application under section 34 of the Act, which has been returned to remove to certain defects. Thus, in our view, while section 34(3) of the Act does indicate the intention of the legislature to ensure that there is no undue delay in filing of an application under section 34 of the Act, the same does not provide any time limit for re-presenting the application. Any restriction with regard to the jurisdiction of the court in condoning the delay in refiling cannot be read into the provision of section 34(3) of the Act. Once an application or an appeal has been filed within the time prescribed, the question of condoning any delay in re-filing would have to be considered by the Court in the context of the explanation given for such delay. In absence of any specific statute that bars the jurisdiction of the Court in considering the question of delay in refiling, it cannot be accepted that the courts are powerless to entertain an application where the delay in its re-filing crosses the time limit specified for filing the application. Although, the courts would have the jurisdiction to condone the delay, the approach in exercising such jurisdiction cannot be liberal and the conduct of the applicant will have to be tested on the anvil of whether the applicant acted with due diligence and dispatch. The applicant would have to show that the delay was on account of reasons beyond the control of the applicant and could not be avoided despite all possible efforts by the applicant. The purpose of specifying an inelastic period of limitation under section 34(3) of the Act would also have to be borne in mind and the Courts would consider the question whether to condone the delay in re-filing in the context of the statute. Thus, in our view a Court would have the jurisdiction to condone delay in re-filing even if the period extends beyond the time specified in section 34(3) of the Act. In the present case, there has been an inordinate delay of 166 days and in our view the appellant has not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation with regard to the same. A liberal approach in condoning the delay in refiling an application under section 34 of the Act is not called for as it would defeat the purpose of specifying an inelastic period of time within which an application, for setting aside an award, under section 34 of the Act must be preferred. - Decided against the appellant.
|