Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, 34 – National Highways Act, 1956 – ss.3A(1), 3G(1) – Acquisition of land by the Central Government – The Competent Authority determined the compensation – Appellant invoked Arbitration u/s.3G(1) – The Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of ss.23(1- A), 23(2), 28 and s.34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Both Appellant and Respondent no.1 filed separate applications u/s.33, which were dismissed by the Arbitrator by a common order dated 04.07.2022 – The certified copy of the said order was received by the Appellant on 15.09.2022 – Appellant filed applications u/s.34 of the Act along with applications seeking condonation of delay – Respondent no.1 raised an objection – The Principal District & Sessions Judge condoned the delay in filing the applications u/s.34 of the Act – Respondent no.1 challenged the same by filing a writ petition – The High Court concluded that the benefit of limitation u/s.34(3) of the Act was not available and, therefore, the limitation could not be computed from the date of disposal of such applications – Consequently, the arbitration applications were dismissed – Correctness:
Held: The issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer res integra – It is settled that for the purposes of computation of limitation u/s.34(3) of the Act, it is the date of disposal of the application u/s.33 of the Act that would earmark the starting point of limitation for filing an application u/s.34 of the Act – A plain reading of s.34(3), read in the light of the law laid down in Geojit, makes it clear that once jurisdiction u/s.33 is formally invoked and such proceedings are entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, the limitation for filing an application u/s.34 would commence only from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal – In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the certified copy of the common order dated 04.07.2022 disposing of the applications u/s.33 was received by the Appellant on 15.09.2022 and that the applications u/s.34 were thereafter filed on 07.11.2022 – Thus, even reckoning limitation from the date of receipt of the order disposing of the applications u/s.33, the applications u/s.34 of the Act were instituted within the period contemplated u/s.34(3) of the Act – Therefore, the contention of the Respondent that the applications u/s.34 of the Act were barred by limitation does not merit acceptance – Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the High Court is set aside – The orders dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge condoning the delay in filing the applications u/s.34 of the Act, are restored – The applications u/s.34 of the Act, to be decided on their own merits, in accordance with the law. [Paras 18-20]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.