Court custody and judicial restraint can exclude delay in award registration when timely presentation became impossible.

An award presented for registration after the statutory period was nevertheless treated as timely because it had been filed in court within time, remained in court custody, and the arbitrators were restrained by subsisting judicial orders from taking further steps. The Court applied the principles that an act of court should prejudice no one and that the law does not compel impossibilities, together with the exclusion of time rationale reflected in limitation law, to hold that the period of court custody and restraint could not be counted against the parties. Registration was therefore upheld and the challenge based on limitation failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the award could be treated as presented for registration within time when it remained in the custody of the court and the arbitrators were restrained by subsisting judicial proceedings from taking steps for registration.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required presentation for registration within four months under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908, with a further limited extension under Section 25 where the statutory conditions are satisfied. On the facts, the award was filed in court within the original period, remained in court custody for a substantial period, and the arbitrators were unable to regain possession because of court orders and an injunction. The period during which compliance was impossible could not be counted against the parties. The equitable maxims that an act of court shall prejudice no man and that the law does not compel impossibilities were applied to exclude the period during which the award was effectively beyond the arbitrators' control, with reference also to the principle of exclusion of time under Section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Conclusion: The registration was within time and the High Court was wrong in quashing it; the order restoring the Sub-Registrar's registration was sustained.

Final Conclusion: An award cannot be invalidated on limitation grounds where court custody and subsisting judicial restraint prevented timely presentation, since the law does not penalise a party for delay caused by the court itself.

Ratio Decidendi: Time spent during which a document is in court custody, or its presentation is prevented by subsisting judicial orders, is not attributable to the party for the purpose of limitation for registration, because the law does not require performance of an impossible act and an act of court must prejudice no one.

---