Limitation Act Section 5 excluded for arbitral award challenges under section 34; delay beyond the extra period cannot be condoned.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 because section 34(3) expressly limits further extension by using the words "but not thereafter." The Court treated this as an express exclusion within the meaning of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, reinforced by the Act's restrictive scheme of minimal judicial intervention and immediate enforceability of the award after expiry of the section 34 period. Delay beyond the additional thirty-day period cannot be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application for setting aside an arbitral award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes sections 4 to 24 applicable to special laws only to the extent they are not expressly excluded. The proviso to section 34(3) permits an application to be entertained within a further period of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown, but the words "but not thereafter" were held to constitute express exclusion of any further extension. The statutory scheme of the 1996 Act also supports this construction: section 5 limits judicial intervention, section 34 requires recourse to court only in accordance with the prescribed time limit, and section 36 gives immediate enforceability to the award once the section 34 period expires.

Conclusion: Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and delay beyond the additional thirty-day period cannot be condoned.

---