TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the objections to the arbitral award could be entertained beyond the normal period under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the re-filing of objections after curing registry defects defeated limitation.
Analysis: The objections were presented within the outer period but were returned for formal defects relating to vakalatnama and caveat particulars. Such defects were not of a substantive character so as to render the filing a nullity. Re-presentation after removal of defects was therefore treated as relating back to the original presentation. The Court also accepted that the objector had proceeded under a bona fide belief that the award was governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940, as reflected in the prior proceedings under Section 14 of that Act and the challenge carried to appeal and SLP. In these circumstances, sufficient cause existed for entertaining the objections within the extended period permitted by the proviso to Section 34(3).
Conclusion: The objections were rightly entertained under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the applications were allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Formal defects in refiled objections do not bar limitation where they are not of a substantive character, and sufficient cause under the proviso to Section 34(3) may be established by bona fide mistake supported by the surrounding proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
