Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
ss. 31(5) and 34 – Arbitration award – Petition by appellant No. 1 u/s. 34 for setting aside the award, filed – Award set aside by District Judge for non-compliance of s. 31(5) – High Court held that the petition u/s. 34 was time barred and hence was dismissed – On appeal, held: Facts and circumstances of the case show that appellant No. 1 was authorized by his family members to receive a copy of the award and act on their behalf – Service of arbitral award on appellant No. 1 amounts to service on his family members (other appellants & respondent) and hence cannot plead non-compliance of s. 31(5) – Petition u/s. 34 was therefore barred by limitation.
s. 34 Proviso – Limitation period for – Condonation of – Held: Proviso to s. 34 gives discretion to the Court to condone the delay for a sufficient cause, but such discretion cannot be extended beyond the period of thirty days – Limitation – Delay-Condonation of.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides for filing of an application for setting aside an arbitral award. Section 34(3) provides that an application for setting aside an award shall not be entertained by the court if it is made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the applicant had received the arbitral award. The proviso to Section
34 further provides that if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the prescribed time, it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days ‘but not thereafter’. The words ‘but not thereafter’ in the proviso are of mandatory nature, and couched in the negative, and leave no room for doubt. Proviso to Section
34 gives discretion to the court to condone the delay for a sufficient cause, but that discretion cannot be extended beyond the period of thirty days, which is made exclusively clear by use of the words ‘but not thereafter’. [Paras 13 and 14] [725-E] [726-B-D]
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damini Construction Co. (2007) 10 SCC 742 – relied on.
2. The undertaking by appellant No. 1, in the award dated 03.11.1996 that he and his family members agreed and approved the award shows that he was acting for himself and on behalf of his family members. Award dated 07.07.1996 was also received by him for himself and on behalf of his family members. In interim MOU dated 29.06.1996, Appellant No. 1 signed for self and as a power of attorney holder for his wife and his all sons and daughters-in-law. Challenging the award dated 07.07.1996, he and his family members have filed a single petition under Section
34 of the Act. Likewise they have also filed a single petition for amending the arbitration petition. Appellant No. 1 being the head of his family, was a person directly connected with and involved in the proceeding and was also in control of the proceeding. Being head of the family, he would have been the best person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and take a decision as to whether an application under Section 34 of the Act was required to be filed or not. In such facts and circumstances, service of arbitral award on appellant No. 1 amounts to service on the other appellant Nos.1 (a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 and they cannot plead non-compliance of Section 31(5) of the Act. The application filed under Section 34 of the Act by appellant No.
1 and appellant Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) and respondent No.10 was barred by limitation. [Paras 22, 23 and 26] [729-F-H; 730-A-B; 731-D]
Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and
Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 239 ; State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 616 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.