TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Section 14 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. (ii) Whether the appellant had prosecuted the proceedings in the wrong courts with due diligence and in good faith so as to claim exclusion of time.
Issue (i): Whether Section 14 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 34 prescribes a limited period of limitation for challenging an award, and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes Sections 4 to 24 applicable to special laws unless expressly excluded. The Act of 1996 contains no express exclusion of Section 14. Section 14 is a beneficial provision intended to protect a litigant who has pursued a remedy in a wrong forum in good faith and with due diligence. The Court distinguished the rule excluding Section 5 from the broader principle of exclusion of time under Section 14 and held that the latter is not displaced merely because Section 34 contains its own limitation period. The statutory scheme, including Section 43, did not manifest any intention to exclude Section 14.
Conclusion: Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had prosecuted the proceedings in the wrong courts with due diligence and in good faith so as to claim exclusion of time.
Analysis: Section 14 requires prior and subsequent civil proceedings, prosecution with due diligence and good faith, failure of the earlier proceeding for want of jurisdiction or a like cause, identity of the matter in issue, and proceedings in a court. On the facts, the appellant first approached one forum, then another after jurisdictional objections, and the issue of jurisdiction was genuinely contested. There was no material to show a deliberate or pretended mistake, or conduct intended to delay or harass. The appellant's choice of forum arose from an honest jurisdictional doubt, and the time spent in the wrong courts was attributable to the bona fide pursuit of the remedy.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Conclusion: The legal position was clarified in favour of applying Section 14 to Section 34 proceedings, and on the facts the appellant succeeded on the question of bona fide prosecution, leading to partial success in the appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory exclusion, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and time spent in a wrong forum is excludable only if the prior proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith.
TaxTMI 
