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

2024 (7) TMI 457

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uting the limitation period. Thus, in effect, the period of limitation, in the facts of the case, started running on 1st July 2022. The period of limitation is of three months and not ninety days. Therefore, from the starting point of 1st July 2022, the last day of the period of three months would be 30th September 2022. As noted earlier, the pooja vacation started on 1st October 2022. In the facts of the case in hand, the three months provided by way of limitation expired a day before the commencement of the pooja vacation, which commenced on 1st October 2022. Thus, the prescribed period within the meaning of Section 4 of the Limitation Act ended on 30th September 2022. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... same day. The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta was closed for pooja vacation from 1st October 2022 to 30th October 2022 (both days inclusive). On 31st October 2022, the appellants filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act ) to challenge the award. By the impugned order dated 4th May 2023, the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellants on the ground of bar of limitation. The High Court held that the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34 expired on 30th September 2022. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act of 1963 (for short, 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

..... f the proceedings are filed within the prescribed period of limitation, which will be three months in this case in terms of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The learned counsel relied upon a decision made by this court in the case of Assam Urban Water Supply Sewerage Board v Subash Projects Mktg. Ltd. (2012) 2 SCC 624 . He also invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Company (2001) 8 SCC 470 . He submitted that, as held by this Court in the said decision, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded in view of the language used in the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34. OUR VIEW 5. The facts are undisputed. The award made by the Arbitral Tribunal o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 1st July 2022. The period of limitation is of three months and not ninety days. Therefore, from the starting point of 1st July 2022, the last day of the period of three months would be 30th September 2022. As noted earlier, the pooja vacation started on 1st October 2022. 8. We may note here that Section 43 of the Arbitration Act provides that the Limitation Act shall apply to the arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in the Court. We may note here that the consistent view taken by this Court right from the decision in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.3 is that given the language used in proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the peti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or setting aside an arbitral award is three months. The period of 30 days mentioned in the proviso that follows subsection (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is not the period of limitation and, therefore, not the prescribed period for the purposes of making the application for setting aside the arbitral award. The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause being shown under the proviso appended to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the 1996 Act being not the period of limitation or, in other words, the prescribed period , in our opinion, Section 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted to the facts of the present case. (underline supplied) Even in this case, this Court was dealing with the period of .....

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