Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (5) TMI 1749 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the petitions challenging the Arbitral Award due to non-compliance with Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Jurisdiction of the Court to condone the delay in filing the petitions under Section 34(3) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the petitions challenging the Arbitral Award due to non-compliance with Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:

The petitions were filed challenging the Arbitral Award dated 10.11.2017. The respondents argued that the petitions were served on them for the first time on 19.04.2018, and thus, the date of filing should be considered as 19.04.2018. Section 34(5) mandates that an application under this section must be filed only after issuing a prior notice to the other party, accompanied by an affidavit endorsing compliance with this requirement. The court emphasized that this requirement is mandatory, not merely a formality, as indicated by the legislative intent to avoid unnecessary delays and ensure expeditious adjudication of objections to arbitral awards. The court cited previous judgments, including those from the Patna and Kerala High Courts, which held that the absence of a prior notice invalidates the filing of the petition under Section 34.

2. Jurisdiction of the Court to condone the delay in filing the petitions under Section 34(3) of the Act:

The court noted that Section 34(3) allows an application to set aside an arbitral award to be filed within three months from the date of receipt of the award, with a possible extension of 30 days for sufficient cause. However, beyond this period, the court has no jurisdiction to condone the delay. In this case, taking the date of filing as 19.04.2018, the petitions were beyond the permissible period, and thus, the court could not condone the delay. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel, which reinforced the mandatory nature of the time limits set out in Section 34(3).

Conclusion:

The petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay, with no order as to costs. The court made it clear that this order did not address the merits of the claims of either party. Additionally, the court advised the Registry to ensure compliance with Section 34(5) by considering the date of filing as the date when the copy of the petition has been served on the other side and thereafter filed or re-filed by the petitioner.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates