Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.2(j) r/w s.4 – “period of limitation” – General Clauses Act, 1897 – s.10 – Application u/s.34(3) – Filing of, after the expiry of 120 days but filed on the first day of reopening after the winter/Christmas vacation – Last day of the condonable period of 30 days u/s.34(3) had fallen during the said vacation – Benefit of s.4, Limitation Act, if available – Held: No – Issue is not res integra – In Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Subash Projects and Marketing Limited reported as [2012] 1 SCR 403 it has been held that the benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed is available only when the application for setting aside the award is filed within ‘prescribed period of limitation’ and it is not available in respect of period extendable by the Court in exercise of its discretion – Further, the contention of the appellant on the applicability of s.10 of the General Clauses Act is also untenable in the light of proviso to s.10 of the General Clauses Act – No error committed by the High Court and Trial court in refusing to condone the delay caused in preferring application u/s.34 which was beyond the period prescribed u/s.34(3).
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.43(1) – Plea of the appellant that Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act – Held: Has no substance – s.43(1) specifically provides that Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceeding in Court – Limitation Act, 1963.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and Sections 2(j) and 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Assam Urban. Even the very issue raised in the present appeal fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Assam Urban. In the aforesaid decision, this Court interpreted the aforesaid provisions and has specifically observed and held that the benefit of exclusion of period during which Court is closed is available only when application for setting aside the award is filed within ‘prescribed period of limitation’ and it is not available in respect of period extendable by the Court in exercise of its discretion. Therefore, as such the question involved in the present appeal is squarely answered against the appellant and the said issue is as such not res integra. [Para 7.1][377-B-D; 380-A]
Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects and Marketing Limited (2012) 2 SCC
624 : [2012] 1 SCR 403 – relied on.
1.2 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the Limitation Act shall not be applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. Section 43(1) of the Arbitration Act specifically provides that Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceeding in Court. However, as observed and held by this Court in the case of Assam Urban, Limitation Act, 1963 shall be applicable to the matters of arbitration covered by 1996 Act save and except to the extent its applicability has been excluded by virtue of express provision contained in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. [Para 8][380-D-E]
1.3 Now, so far as reliance placed upon Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on behalf of the appellant is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that such a contention is untenable in light of the proviso to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which specifically excludes the application of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 applies. Reference to 1877 Act will now have to be read as reference to Limitation Act, 1963 in view of Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, in light of the application of Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act and when Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 specifically excludes the applicability of Section 10 to any act or proceeding to which Indian Limitation Act, 1963 applies and in light of the definition of “period of limitation” as defined under Section 2(j) read with Section 4 of the Limitation Act and as observed and held by this Court in the case of Assam Urban, benefit of exclusion of period during which the Court is closed shall be available when the application for setting aside award is filed within “prescribed period of limitation” and shall not be available in respect of period extendable by Court in exercise of its discretion. [Para 9][380G-H; 381-A-C]
HUDA & Anr. v. Dr. Babeswar Kanhar & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 191 : [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 282; Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Ors. (1996) 1 SCC 169 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 421; Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Private Limited and Others (2021) 2 SCC 317; Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619; State of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 6 SCC 460; Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 169 : [2008] 5 SCR 1108; State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (2010) 4 SCC 518 : [2010] 4 SCR 46; Sridevi Datla v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 321 – 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.