9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to arbitration award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 based on rejection of application u/s 33 of the Act.
Summary: Challenge to Arbitration Award: The Petitioner challenged an arbitration award dated 16th May, 2009, received on 1st June, 2009, by filing an application u/s 34 of the Act. Prior to this, the Petitioner had filed an application u/s 33 of the Act on 19th June, 2009, which was rejected on 1st July, 2009 by the Arbitrator. The Petitioner then filed the present petition u/s 34 on 7th October, 2009, beyond the limitation period prescribed by the Act. Interpretation of Sections 33 and 34: Sections 33 and 34 of the Act provide for correction, interpretation, and addition to the arbitral award within specified timeframes. The consent of parties is crucial for any correction or addition to the award. The Tribunal must make corrections or additions within the stipulated timeframes to form part of the arbitral award. Limitation Period: Section 34(3) mandates that an application for setting aside an award must be made within three months from the date of receiving the award or the disposal of a request u/s 33 by the Arbitrator. The originality of the award is affected only if modifications or additions are made, triggering a fresh limitation period from the receipt of the modified award. Court's Decision: The Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Act on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing the strict adherence to the prescribed time limits. The Court highlighted that without any modifications or corrections to the award, the originality of the award remains intact, and the limitation period cannot be extended based on the rejection of an application u/s 33. Precedent and Legal Interpretation: The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the strict construction of Section 34(3) and the limited scope for extending the limitation period. The Court clarified that unless there are exceptional circumstances falling under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, delays in filing petitions under Section 34 cannot be condoned. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the sole ground of being time-barred, without delving into the merits of the case.
|
