9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 875 - SC - Indian LawsWhat is the date of commencement of limitation? Whether the period of three months can be counted as 90 days? Whether only three months plus twenty eight days had expired when the petition was filed as contended by the appellant, or whether petition was filed beyond three months plus thirty days, as contended by the respondent? Held that - Appeal allowed. The period of three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award shall be computed from 13.11.2007. When the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result, depending upon the months, it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days Thus Thirty days from 12.2.2008 under the proviso should be calculated from 13.2.2008 and, having regard to the number of days in February, would expire on 13.3.2008. Therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was well in time and was not barred by limitation.
Issues:
1. Calculation of limitation period for filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. Interpretation of the term 'received' in Section 31(5) of the Act. 3. Determination of the date of commencement of limitation. 4. Clarification on the period of three months as mentioned in section 34(3) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Calculation of limitation period The case involved a dispute regarding the calculation of the limitation period for filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court had dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that the petition filed beyond the prescribed period was barred by limitation. The appellant contended that the petition was filed within the condonable delay period. Issue 2: Interpretation of the term 'received' The Court examined the meaning of the term 'received' in Section 31(5) of the Act concerning the delivery of an arbitral award to a party. It was established that the date of physical delivery to the office of a party should not be considered as the date of receipt if delivered on a non-working day. The date of receipt should be the next working day, as clarified in previous judgments. Issue 3: Determination of the date of commencement of limitation The Court determined that the date of commencement of limitation should be calculated from the date the party actually received the arbitral award, excluding the day of receipt. The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 were applied to exclude the day from which the period of limitation is to be reckoned. Issue 4: Clarification on the period of three months The Court clarified that the term 'three months' as mentioned in section 34(3) of the Act did not equate to 90 days. A 'month' referred to the actual period of a calendar month, and the legislature did not intend for the period of three months to be interpreted as 90 days. The Court relied on legal precedents to explain the calculation of a month in legal proceedings. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the High Court's order was set aside. The delay in filing the petition was condoned as it fell within the limit of condonable delay. The matter was remanded to the High Court for further consideration on the merits of the petition under section 34 of the Act in accordance with the law.
|
