Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Amit Suryakant Lunavat, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award dated 16th May 2009, which he received on 1st June 2009. The petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 33 of the Act on 19th June 2009, seeking correction and review of the award on various grounds including limitation and merits. The Arbitrator, by order dated 1st July 2009, rejected the application, observing that there were no typographical or clerical errors and that the application amounted to a review of the award, which is not within the scope of Section 33. The petitioner then filed the Section 34 petition on 7th October 2009. The respondent, M/s. Kotak Securities, contended that the petition was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of three months from the date of receipt of the award, and the period during which the Section 33 application was pending could not be excluded. The court examined the relevant provisions, including Section 34(3) which prescribes a limitation period of three months for challenging an award, extendable by a further thirty days on sufficient cause, but not thereafter. The court noted that the award was received on 1st June 2009, and the petition was filed on 7th October 2009, which is beyond the three-month period (ending 1st September 2009) and also beyond the additional thirty-day period (ending 1st October 2009). The court held that an application under Section 33 does not extend the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition, as the two provisions are independent. The court also held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to a petition under Section 34 of the Act. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Limitation for Challenging Award - Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petition under Section 34 was filed beyond the prescribed period of three months plus thirty days. The court held that an application under Section 33 of the Act does not extend the limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34. The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to a petition under Section 34 of the Act. The petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. (Paras 6-10) B) Arbitration Law - Correction and Interpretation of Award - Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The petitioner's application under Section 33 sought review of the award on merits, which is not permissible under Section 33. The Arbitrator correctly rejected the application as it did not fall within the scope of Section 33. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitral award is barred by limitation, and whether the period during which an application under Section 33 of the Act was pending can be excluded for computing the limitation period under Section 34.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the petition as barred by limitation, holding that the petition under Section 34 was filed beyond the prescribed period of three months plus thirty days, and the application under Section 33 does not extend the limitation period.
Law Points
- Limitation for challenging arbitral award under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Application under Section 33 does not extend limitation period under Section 34
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
- 1963 not applicable to Section 34 petitions
