9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 875X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.5998 OF 2010 Arising out of SLP [C] No.4063/2010 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2010 - R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J. JUDGMENT Leave granted. Heard. 2. The appellant (State of Himachal Pradesh represented by the Executive Engineer, I PH Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ree months period ended on 9.2.2008; that even if the maximum additional period of 30 days was counted thereafter (by calculating from 10.2.2008), the last date of limitation for filing the petition would have been 10.3.2008 and therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was barred by limitation. He held that court had power to condone the delay only to a maximum period of ninety days plus thirty days and therefore, the delay in filing the petition on 11.3.2008 could not be condoned. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. 4. Section 34 of the Act relates to applications for setting aside arbitral awards. Sub-section (3) of Section 34 prescribes the period of limitation for such applications. It reads thus: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months plus thirty days. There is no dispute that if the petition had been filed within a period of three months plus thirty days, the delay has to be condoned as sufficient cause was shown by the appellant for condonation of the delay. But the High Court has accepted the contention of the respondent that the period of three months plus thirty days expired on 10.3.2008 and therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was barred. Therefore, the following questions arise for our consideration: (i) What is the date of commencement of limitation? (ii) Whether the period of three months can be counted as 90 days? (iii) Whether only three months plus twenty eight days had expired when the petition was filed as contended by the appellant, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings. In the context of a huge organization like Railways, the copy of the award has to be received by the person who has knowledge of the proceedings and who would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 12 of Limitation Act, 1963 to petitions under Section 34 of the Act is not excluded by the provisions of the Act. Section (9) of General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that in any Central Act, when the word from is used to refer to commencement of time, the first of the days in the period of time shall be excluded. Therefore 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. Re : Question (ii) 9. The High Court has held that three months mentioned in section 34(3) of the Act refers to a period of 90 days. This is erroneous. A month does not refer to a period of thirty days, but refers to the actual period of a calendar mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e giving of a notice, the general rule is that the period ends on the corresponding date in the appropriate subsequent month irrespective of whether some months are longer than others. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 197. Therefore 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. Re: Question (iii) 12. As the award was received by the Executive Engineer on 12.11.2007, for the purpose of calculating the three mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
