1953 (10) TMI 42 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation of the suit.
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to arbitration proceedings.
3. Interpretation of Section 37(1) and 37(5) of the Arbitration Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Limitation of the Suit:
The central issue is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The contract of sale was dated 21 September 1948, and the suit was filed on 22 February 1952. According to Article 115 of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been filed within three years. Since the suit was filed beyond this period, it would typically be considered time-barred unless the plaintiff could exclude certain periods under the Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to Arbitration Proceedings:
The plaintiff argued that the time taken in infructuous arbitration proceedings should be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 allows for the exclusion of time spent prosecuting another civil proceeding in good faith in a court that lacked jurisdiction. However, the court determined that Section 14 does not apply to arbitration proceedings. The court emphasized that the Legislature intended Section 14 to apply to judicial courts, not arbitrators. The Privy Council's decision in 'Ramdutt Ramkissen v. E.D. Sasson & Co.' was cited, where it was held that the Limitation Act applies to arbitration proceedings by analogy, not by direct interpretation.

3. Interpretation of Section 37(1) and 37(5) of the Arbitration Act:
The court noted that the new Arbitration Act simplifies the issue. Section 37(1) explicitly states that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act apply to arbitrations as they do to court proceedings. Section 37(5) provides that the period between the commencement of arbitration and the date of a court order setting aside an award or declaring the arbitration agreement to cease to have effect should be excluded in computing the limitation period. Since no such court order existed in this case, the time taken in arbitration proceedings could not be excluded under Section 37(5).

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff could not exclude the time taken in arbitration proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, nor could they benefit from Section 37(5) of the Arbitration Act, as no relevant court order was present. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the suit was deemed time-barred. The judgment was delivered with costs against the plaintiff.