Section 14 limitation exclusion applies to a bona fide section 34 filing defect where prior notice was omitted.

Time spent in a prior section 34 arbitration petition filed without the notice contemplated by section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was treated as excludable under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court accepted that, at the relevant time, there was a bona fide and reasonable doubt whether section 34(5) was mandatory or directory, and that the objection prevented the petition from being entertained until the statutory precondition was satisfied. Because the earlier filing was pursued in good faith and with due diligence, the fresh section 34 petition was not barred by limitation and the limitation objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the time spent in prosecuting the earlier section 34 petition could be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the omission to give prior notice under section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 created a defect of a like nature, and whether the fresh petition was therefore within limitation.

Analysis: The petition under section 34 had been lodged within three months from receipt of the signed award, but without prior notice under section 34(5). The respondents objected to maintainability on that ground, and the petitioner then withdrew the earlier petition and refiled after issuing notice and filing the compliance affidavit. The Court held that there was a bona fide and reasonable doubt at the relevant time as to whether section 34(5) was mandatory or directory, and that the objection raised went to the court's ability to entertain the petition until the statutory condition was satisfied. Applying the liberal construction of section 14, the Court held that such a defect was analogous to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The petitioner had acted in good faith, with due diligence, and had not intended to delay or harass the respondents.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to exclusion of time under section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period spent in the earlier proceeding, and the fresh section 34 petition was not barred by limitation. The preliminary objection to limitation was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural objection that prevents a court from entertaining a section 34 petition until a statutory precondition is met may constitute an other cause of a like nature for section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and time spent in a bona fide, diligent prior proceeding can be excluded.

---