Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Blue Prime Aluminum Ltd. and others, filed a notice of motion seeking condonation of 24 days delay in filing an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an arbitral award. The respondent, L & T Finance Ltd., opposed the motion, arguing that the delay was more than 30 days and thus the court had no power to condone it. The applicants contended that they received the award in the first week of December 2014 and subsequently filed an application under Section 33 of the Act on 20 January 2015, which they argued should extend the limitation period. The court, however, held that the proviso to Section 34(3) allows a maximum extension of 30 days beyond the three-month period from receipt of the award, and no further condonation is permissible. The court also held that an application under Section 33 does not extend the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition. Consequently, the notice of motion was dismissed, and the arbitration petition was rejected as barred by limitation.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Section 34(3) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Condonation of Delay - The court considered whether delay beyond 30 days from the expiry of three months can be condoned. Held that the proviso to Section 34(3) allows extension of only 30 days, and no further condonation is permissible. (Paras 1-3)
B) Arbitration Law - Effect of Application under Section 33 - Section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Limitation - The court examined whether filing an application for correction of award under Section 33 extends the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition. Held that such application does not extend the limitation period. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court has power to condone delay of more than 30 days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether an application under Section 33 of the Act extends the limitation period.
Final Decision
Notice of motion dismissed. Arbitration petition rejected as barred by limitation.
Law Points
- Limitation for setting aside arbitral award is three months from receipt of award
- proviso allows maximum extension of 30 days
- application under Section 33 does not extend limitation period
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 111
Notice of Motion No.1733 of 2015 in Arbitration Petition (L) No.1854 of 2015
Mr. Ashish Mehta a/w Ms. Sarbari Chatterjee a/w Ms. Avani Rathod i/by M/s. Ashish Mehta for the applicants/petitioners; Mr. Anand Poojary a/w Ms. Nikita Pawar i/by M/s. S.I. Joshi & Co. for the respondent
Blue Prime Aluminum Ltd., Mr. Pritam Mantri, Mr. Rambilas Mantri
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Notice of motion seeking condonation of delay in filing arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Remedy Sought
Condonation of 24 days delay in filing the arbitration petition.
Filing Reason
The applicants received the arbitral award in the first week of December 2014 and filed an application under Section 33 on 20 January 2015, but did not file the Section 34 petition within the prescribed limitation period.
Issues
Whether the court has power to condone delay of more than 30 days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Whether an application under Section 33 of the Act extends the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondent argued that the delay was more than 30 days and the court has no power to condone such delay.
Applicants argued that they received the award in first week of December 2014 and filed an application under Section 33 on 20 January 2015, which should extend the limitation period.
Ratio Decidendi
The proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allows a maximum extension of 30 days beyond the three-month period from receipt of the award, and no further condonation is permissible. An application under Section 33 does not extend the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition.
Judgment Excerpts
By this notice of motion, the applicants seek condonation of delay of 24 days in filing the present arbitration petition.
Mr.Poojary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petition is not filed within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the signed award by the applicants from the learned arbitrator. He submits that delay is not of 24 days but much more than 30 days and thus this Court has no power to condone the delay of more than 30 days.
Mr.Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the papers in the arbitral proceedings were not served upon the applicants. He submits that the copy of the impugned award was received by the applicants in the first week of December 2014. He submits that the applicants, thereafter, made an application on 20th January 2015 through their advocate to the learned arbitrator requesting the learned arbitrator to set aside the impugned award by correcting various mistakes. He submits that the said application made by the applicants was actually filed under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the said Act').
Procedural History
The applicants filed an arbitration petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an arbitral award. The petition was filed with a delay of 24 days, for which the applicants filed a notice of motion seeking condonation. The respondent opposed the motion on the ground that the delay was more than 30 days and the court had no power to condone it. The court heard both sides and dismissed the motion, rejecting the petition as barred by limitation.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 33, 34(3)
