Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 – s.34 – Power of Court to condone the delay for setting aside an Award – In the instant case, Arbitral award passed on 28.02.2011 in favour of appellant and copy of the award dispatched to both the parties – Thereafter appellant filed execution petition on 27.06.2011 to recover amount due from the respondent – Respondent on 04.01.2012 assailed the arbitral award by filing the petition under s.34 of the Act 1996 along with the notice of motion under s.5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 185 days which is beyond the time limit prescribed under s.34(3) of the Act 1996 – Single Judge while considering the notice of motion noted that respondent refused to accept the registered post containing the award and in that view, declined to condone the delay – However, Division Bench of High Court condoned the delay – On appeal, held: Limitation period to set aside an award is prescribed under s.34 of the Act 1996 – Extent to which the delay in setting aside an award can be condoned is circumscribed under proviso s.34(3) of the Act 1996 – s.5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under s.34 of the Act 1996 – Division Bench was not justified in condoning the delay in a casual manner – Order of Single Judge restored.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the order passed by the Single Judge indicates that as per the explanation put forth by the respondent, it was their case that the Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of Act 1996 filed on 04.01.2012 was on having knowledge of the award, which according to the respondent was on 15.11.2011 when notice in the execution petition was received. The affidavit in reply was noted by the Single Judge, as per which it was brought on record that the Arbitrator had dispatched the award dated 28.02.2011 on 15.03.2011 by making an inscription, ‘AWARD’, on the envelope, by Regd. Post Acknowledgment due. The refusal to receive was endorsed by the postal authority on 23.03.2011. In appropriate cases the delay is to be condoned so as not to defeat the meritorious case. However, that would arise only when the power under Section 5 of Limitation Act is available to be exercised. The case of Katiji is one where such power was available to be exercised as it was not excluded. In the instant case where limitation is prescribed, the extent to which it can be condoned is circumscribed and it has been held by this Court that Section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of Act 1996, the Division Bench was not justified in condoning the delay in a casual manner. [Paras 8, 10][101-A-C; 102-B-D]
Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619; State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Himachal Techno Engineers & Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 210 : [2010] 8 SCR 1025; P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445 : [2018] 12 SCR 143; Chintels India Limited v. Bhayana Biuilders Private Limited (2021) 4 SCC 602 – relied on.
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Another v. Mst. Katiji and Others AIR 1987 SC 1353 : [1987] 2 SCR 387 – held inapplicable.
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.