Skip to main content

Sec. 17 of Limitation Act Can’t Be Invoked To Condone Delay In Filing Application To Set Aside Arbitration Award

In P. RADHA BAI vs P. ASHOK KUMAR, an interesting question of law was put to the Supreme Court concerning the applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of a delay caused on the account of alleged fraud played on the objector (party challenging the award) beyond the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act.

The background of the issue was that the litigants were in a property dispute which went for arbitration and an award was passed. 236 days after the passing of the award, the Respondents herein approached trial court for condonation of delay and alleged fraud being committed on them by the Appellants herein.

The Trial court however dismissed the application stating that condonation of delay beyond the limit prescribed by the Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is being its power. On appeal the High Court remanded the matter back to the lower court with the instruction to consider delay in the light of the fraud angle against which this appeal was filed.

The Supreme Court disagreeing with the High Court held that in this case there has been a considerable delay in resolving the dispute. The very purpose of speedy justice delivery mechanism would be frustrated by such delays if the matter is allowed to linger before the courts. The Arbitration Act is a “special law” which prescribes a specific period of limitation in Section 34(3) for filing objections to an arbitral award passed under the 1996 Act and consequently the provisions of Arbitration Act would apply and there is no provision under the Limitation Act dealing with challenging an Award passed under the Arbitration Act. The Supreme Court further went on to hold that Section 34 is the only remedy for challenging an award and Section 17 of the Limitation Act does not work with the Arbitration Act.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more