Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Condonation of Delay in Filing Section 34 Petition Under Arbitration Act — Limitation Period Computed Strictly Under Section 34(3) Read With Section 33(6). The court held that the delay beyond the 30-day extension period cannot be condoned, and the District Court's order was upheld.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 94
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, M/s. S.R. Thermocole (EPS) Packaging Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the order of the District Court, Pune, which dismissed its application for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act to set aside an arbitral award. The arbitral award was passed on 5 January 2010, and the appellant received a copy on 8 January 2010. On 18 January 2010, the appellant filed an application under Section 33(4) for an additional award, which was passed on 29 March 2010 and received on 30 March 2010. The appellant then filed the Section 34 petition on 24 June 2010, along with an application for condonation of delay. The District Court dismissed the condonation application, holding that the petition was barred by limitation. The High Court examined the timeline: the limitation period of three months under Section 34(3) commenced from 30 March 2010 (receipt of additional award) and expired on 30 June 2010. However, the petition was filed on 24 June 2010, which was within three months. But the court noted that the appellant had also sought condonation of delay, implying that the petition was filed beyond the limitation period. Upon closer scrutiny, the court found that the appellant had miscalculated the limitation period. The period from 30 March 2010 to 24 June 2010 is 86 days, which is within three months (90 days). However, the appellant had excluded 85 days for the pendency of the Section 33 application, but that period was already from 30 March 2010 to 24 June 2010, which is the same period. The court clarified that the limitation period for filing the Section 34 petition is three months from the date of receipt of the additional award (30 March 2010), and the time taken for the Section 33 application is excluded only if the application was made before the award was received. Here, the Section 33 application was made before the additional award, so the exclusion applies. But even after excluding the period from 18 January 2010 to 29 March 2010 (the pendency of the Section 33 application), the petition was still filed beyond the three-month period from 30 March 2010. The court held that the District Court correctly dismissed the condonation application as the delay exceeded the permissible 30-day extension under the proviso to Section 34(3). The appeal was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Computation of Limitation Period - The limitation period of three months for filing a petition under Section 34 commences from the date of receipt of the award or, if an application under Section 33 is made, from the date of receipt of the decision on that application. The court held that the period of 85 days during which the application under Section 33(4) was pending (from 30 March 2010 to 24 June 2010) must be excluded, but even after such exclusion, the petition was filed beyond the permissible period of three months plus 30 days. (Paras 2-5)

B) Arbitration Law - Condonation of Delay - Section 34(3) proviso of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The proviso allows a further period of 30 days for filing a Section 34 petition after expiry of the three-month limitation period, but no further condonation is permissible. The court held that the delay beyond the 30-day period cannot be condoned, and the District Court rightly dismissed the application. (Paras 5-6)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the District Court was correct in dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the District Court dated 29 October 2012, which dismissed the application for condonation of delay.

Law Points

  • Limitation for setting aside arbitral award
  • Computation of limitation period under Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • Exclusion of time for application under Section 33(4)
  • Condonation of delay beyond 30 days after expiry of limitation period
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (04) 43

Arbitration Appeal No.10 of 2013

2015-04-23

A.A. Sayed

Mr. Herbert Naronha for Appellant, Ms. Yogita M. Deshmukh i/b Mr. M.M. Sathaye for Respondent

M/s. S.R. Thermocole (EPS) Packaging Pvt. Ltd.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against order dismissing application for condonation of delay in filing petition under Section 34 of the Act.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order of the District Court dismissing its application for condonation of delay and to allow the Section 34 petition.

Filing Reason

The District Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that the petition under Section 34 was barred by limitation.

Previous Decisions

The District Court, Pune, by order dated 29 October 2012, dismissed Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2011 filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the Section 34 petition.

Issues

Whether the District Court was correct in holding that the petition under Section 34 was barred by limitation? Whether the time taken for disposal of the application under Section 33(4) should be excluded in computing the limitation period under Section 34(3)?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that the period during which the application under Section 33(4) was pending should be excluded, and after such exclusion, the Section 34 petition was within limitation. Respondent supported the District Court's order, contending that the petition was filed beyond the permissible period.

Ratio Decidendi

The limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is three months from the date of receipt of the award or, if an application under Section 33 is made, from the date of receipt of the decision on that application. The proviso to Section 34(3) allows a further period of 30 days, but no further condonation is permissible. The time taken for disposal of the Section 33 application is excluded only if the application was made before the award was received. In this case, even after excluding the period of pendency of the Section 33 application, the petition was filed beyond the three-month period, and the delay exceeded the 30-day extension, hence the condonation application was rightly dismissed.

Judgment Excerpts

By this Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Appellant has impugned the order dated 29 October 2012 passed by the District Court, Pune, whereby the Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2011 of the Appellant/Original Applicant for condonation of delay in filing the Petition/Application under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

Procedural History

The arbitral award was passed on 5 January 2010 and received by the appellant on 8 January 2010. The appellant filed an application under Section 33(4) on 18 January 2010. The additional award was passed on 29 March 2010 and received on 30 March 2010. The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 on 24 June 2010 along with an application for condonation of delay (Miscellaneous Application No.248 of 2011). The District Court dismissed the condonation application on 29 October 2012. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 37 on 10 January 2013.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 33(4), Section 33(6), Section 34, Section 34(3), Section 37
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Investigation Order in Municipal Salary Dispute — Non-Payment of Salary Does Not Constitute Criminal Offence Under IPC or Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that vague allegations of demand of illegal gratificati...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Rejection of Condonation of Delay in Filing Section 34 Petition Under Arbitration Act — Limitation Period Computed Strictly Under Section 34(3) Read With Section 33(6). The court held that the delay beyond...