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

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (9) TMI 1292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... June, 2009, and various grounds were raised referring to limitation and the merit also and prayed to reconsider all the points. The Respondent though served, not appeared before the Tribunal. 3. By order dated 1st July, 2009, the Arbitrator, observed that; there are no typographical or clerical errors or errors of similar nature in the award; the application, as filed, does not come within any of the criteria falling under Section 33; it amounts to review of the award; rejected the application on all grounds. 4. The Petitioner moved/ lodged this petition under Section 34 of the Act, on 07/10/2009. 5. The relevant Section 33 is reproduced as under:- 33 Correction and interpretation of award; additional award.- (1) Within thirt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under Sub-section (2) of Sub-section (5). (7) Section 31 shall apply to a correction or interpretation of the arbitral award or to an additional arbitral award made under this section. 6. Section 34 sub-clause 3 is also reproduced as under:- (1) ... (2)... (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otherwise agreed by the parties and subject to notice to other party, a party may request within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Arbitral award, the Arbitral Tribunal to make an additional arbitral award, in a case where the Arbitrator, for whatever may be the reason, omitted to decide some portion or part of the claim so made by the parties. Therefore, the consent of the parties here again necessary for such additional arbitral award of the omitted claims only and not otherwise. One party cannot apply for additional award firstly, without due notice and secondly, without consent to reconsider and or/to consider the omitted claims, if any. The Tribunal, within 60 days from the receipt of the request may consider and pass the additi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e receipt of the award, and the order of the same received within 30 days or 60 days, as referred above, there is no question of starting new limitation period from the date of disposing of the arbitration application under Section 33 of the Act, in a case, where the Arbitrator rejects the application without making any modification/ correction and/or addition in arbitral award. 13. There is no justification, as contended, to accept the submission in view of the mandate of Section 34 and considering the scheme and purpose of the Arbitration Act that because the application under Section 33 of the Act was filed and it was rejected subsequently, therefore, the limitation period commenced afresh from the date of such decision of the award. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction 33, as well as Section 34(3) observed that such application was totally misconceived and the Arbitrator's decision did not give any fresh cause of action so as to file application under Section 34(3) of the Act taking it as a supporting point of limitation from the date of reply/ order given by the Arbitrator. 16. I have already observed in Arbitration Petition No. 207 of 2009, Shri. Ashwin Neema v. Mangalam Clothes (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. by order referring to Section 34(3) of the Act as under:- 3. The Apex Court has declared that the provisions in Section 34(3) has to be construed strictly. The time limit so prescribed is absolute and unextendable State of Goa v. Western Builders (2006) 6 SCC 239. Section 14 of the Limitation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates