Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (3) TMI 137 - SC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Commencement of the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. The legal significance of the majority award versus the dissenting opinion in arbitration proceedings.
3. The procedural requirements for the delivery and receipt of the arbitral award.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Commencement of the Limitation Period:
The primary issue was whether the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, begins from the date the draft award was circulated (27.04.2018) or from the date the signed copy of the award was provided (19.05.2018). The Court held that the limitation period for filing objections would commence from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties. This is in line with Section 31(5) of the Act, which mandates that a signed copy of the award must be delivered to each party. The Court emphasized that the delivery and receipt of the signed award are crucial for setting the limitation period in motion.

2. Majority Award vs. Dissenting Opinion:
The Court clarified that the arbitral award refers to the decision made by the majority of the members of the arbitral tribunal, as per Section 29(1) of the Act. The dissenting opinion is not considered an award but can be used to support arguments under Section 34. The Court cited several precedents, including Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, to highlight that while a dissenting opinion can be relevant for judicial scrutiny, it does not affect the commencement of the limitation period for filing objections.

3. Procedural Requirements for Delivery and Receipt of the Award:
The Court examined the procedural history and found that although the award was pronounced on 27.04.2018, the signed copy was provided to the parties only on 19.05.2018. The procedural orders of the tribunal indicated that the draft award was circulated to identify any typographical or clerical errors, and the dissenting opinion was delivered on 12.05.2018. The final signed copy was handed over on 19.05.2018, which marked the termination of the proceedings. The Court reiterated that the period of limitation for filing objections under Section 34(3) starts from the date of receipt of the signed award.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the objections filed by the appellant corporation were within the limitation period prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when reckoned from 19.05.2018. Consequently, the judgments of the Civil Court and the High Court, which dismissed the objections on the ground of delay, were set aside. The petition under Section 34 was restored to the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, Haryana, to be decided on merits in accordance with law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates