Delay Beyond Prescribed Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned In View Of Inapplicability Of S.5 Of Limitation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) does not apply to a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act). Therefore, if the petition is not filed within the prescribed period as laid down under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the delay cannot be condoned. Brief Facts: The award was passed by the learned Arbitrator against the appellant/applicant on 03.01.2022. The award was challenged by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which came to be dismissed by the District Judge on 13.06.2024 as the petition was filed beyond the prescribed period provided under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act . Feeling aggrieved, applicant/appellant has instituted this arbitration appeal taking recourse to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. There is a delay of 258 days in the institution of this appeal as well. Hence, application has been moved for condoning the delay. Observations: The court at the outset observed that the award was passed against the applicant/appellant on 03.01.2022 and received on 20.08.2022. Accordingly, the three-month period under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, to challenge the award began from 20.08.2022 and lapsed around 22.11.2022. The court also observed that under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, an application for setting aside the award must be filed within three months, extendable by a further 30 days only upon showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. Based on the above, the court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to applications challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Under Section 34(3), such an application must be made within three months, extendable by only thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The court further opined that the phrase “but not thereafter” in the proviso to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act clearly bars any extension beyond thirty days as held by the Supreme Court in My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd (2025). The court held that in the present case, the three-month period from the date of receipt of the award expired on 22.11.2022, and the further thirty-day period lapsed on 22.12.2022. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was instituted on 19.01.2023, with a delay of about 33 days. Based on the above, the court concluded that the District Judge rightly held that delay beyond 120 days under Section 34 could not be condoned. Additionally, the applicant/appellant has also failed to justify the delay in invoking Section 37 of the Arbitration Act. Accordingly, the present application along with the appeal was dismissed. Case Title: National Highway Authority of India. Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors. Case Number: OMPM No.55 of 2025 in Arbitration Appeal No.87 of 2025 Judgment Date: 09/04/2025 For the appellant : Ms. Shreya Chauhan and Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocates. For the respondents : Nemo. Click here to download Order/Judgement

Delay Beyond Prescribed Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned In View Of Inapplicability Of S.5 Of Limitation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delay Beyond Prescribed Period U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Cannot Be Condoned In View Of Inapplicability Of S.5 Of Limitation Act: Himachal Pradesh HC

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers