2010 (11) TMI 1132 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the court for filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for exclusion of time spent in a court without jurisdiction.
3. Computation of the limitation period for filing objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
4. Requirement and impact of filing a certified copy of the arbitral award.
5. Condonation of delay in refiling objections due to procedural defects.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court:
The appeal challenged the order dated 5.9.2007, where the learned Single Judge held that objections under Section 34 of the A&C Act were filed in the District Judge, Delhi, without jurisdiction and refiling in the High Court of Delhi was delayed by 45 days. The Single Judge concluded that the objections were time-barred even if the period spent in the wrong court was excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

2. Applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act:
The court considered whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows exclusion of time spent in a court without jurisdiction, applied to the present case. The court reiterated that Section 14 provides for exclusion, not extension, of time. The period spent in the wrong court (one year and seven months) was excluded, but the objections were still filed beyond the permissible period.

3. Computation of Limitation Period:
The court explained that the limitation period for filing objections under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is three months, extendable by 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. The objections were initially filed within the statutory period in the wrong court, but the refiling in the High Court was delayed. The court emphasized that the refiling must occur within the total span of 90 days plus a discretionary 30 days.

4. Requirement of Certified Copy of the Award:
The court highlighted that the absence of a certified copy of the award could render the filing non-est. The objections must be accompanied by a certified copy of the award to be considered valid.

5. Condonation of Delay in Refiling:
The court examined whether the delay in refiling objections after procedural defects were noted by the registry could be condoned. The court held that procedural defects, such as the absence of a certified copy, must be rectified within a reasonable period. The delay in refiling was not justified, and the objections were deemed time-barred.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the objections were restored to the board of the learned Single Judge for a decision in accordance with the law. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines and procedural requirements under the A&C Act to ensure the expeditious resolution of arbitral disputes.