Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2018 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 388 - SC - Indian LawsCondonation of delay in delay of 514 days in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -benefit of Sections 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act - Differences with regard to the performance of the construction work - reference to Arbitration - prayer for setting aside the arbitral award. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in condoning a delay of 514 days by the respondent in filing the application under Section 34? Held that:- The position of law is well settled with respect to the applicability of Section14 of the Limitation Act to an application filed under Section 34 of the 1996 Act. A plain reading of sub-section (3) along with the proviso to Section 34 of the 1996 Act, shows that the application for setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 34 could be made within three months and the period can only be extended for a further period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The use of the words “but not thereafter” in the proviso makes it clear that the extension cannot be beyond thirty days. Even if the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is given to the respondent, there will still be a delay of 131 days in filing the application. That is beyond the strict timelines prescribed in sub-section (3) read along with the proviso to Section 34 of the 1996 Act. The delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so, as the High Court did, is to breach a clear statutory mandate. The respondent received the arbitral award on 31 October 2014. Exactly ninety days after the receipt of the award, the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the District Judge, Port Blair on 30 January 2015. On 12 February 2016, the District Judge dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction and on 28 March 2016, the respondent filed an application before the High Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the arbitral award. After the order of dismissal of the application by the District Judge, the respondent took almost 44 days - Hence, even if the respondent is given the benefit of the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in respect of the period spent in pursuing the proceedings before the District Judge, Port Blair, the petition under Section 34 was filed much beyond the outer period of ninety days. In view of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 34(3), the learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in condoning the respondent’s delay of 514 days in filing the application - The petition under Section 34 stands dismissed on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
|