Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay High Court against the order dated 10 April 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 342 of 2020. The Single Judge had allowed the respondent's petition under Section 34 and quashed the arbitral award dated 18 October 2019. The only issue urged before the Single Judge was limitation, namely whether the appellant's claim against the respondent was barred by limitation. The scope of the appeal was confined to that determination. The appellant, a Korean company, supplied low alloy steel forgings to the respondent, an Indian company, under two purchase orders. The first purchase order was for the first lot of forgings at USD 735,280 and the second purchase order for the second lot at USD 1,360,000. The appellant dispatched shipments under the first purchase order on 25 November 2008 and 9 December 2008, and under the second purchase order on 19 November 2008, 2 December 2008, 9 December 2008 and 22 December 2008. Invoices became due between May and June 2009. The respondent made certain payments but outstanding amounts totalling USD 719,710 remained unpaid. The appellant contended that it extended the time for payment until 7 September 2009 based on assurances, that a meeting on 12 June 2009 resulted in an agreement for interest at 6% p.a., and that the respondent made partial payments towards interest on 5 February 2010 and 12 February 2010. The respondent later informed the appellant that the Essar Project had failed and did not pay the outstanding amounts. The provided excerpt ends at paragraph 20, before the submissions, analysis and conclusion sections are set out. The final decision of the Division Bench is not available in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Limitation - Claim Barred by Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Sections 34, 37 - The only issue before the learned Single Judge was whether the appellant's claim against the respondent was barred by limitation. The Single Judge allowed the respondent's Section 34 petition and set aside the arbitral award, holding the claim time-barred. The Division Bench considered the correctness of that order within the limited scope of interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Paras 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant's claim in the arbitral proceedings against the respondent was barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation
- Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
- Section 37 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
- limited interference in arbitral awards
