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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a delay of more than 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Analysis: The appeal was filed beyond the 90-day period contemplated for such an appeal and beyond the additional grace period of 30 days. The Court held that, in view of the statutory scheme and the object of speedy disposal of arbitral disputes, a delay exceeding 120 days in a Section 37 appeal from an order under Section 34 ought not to be condoned. The Court also relied on the principle that an appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding, and applied its earlier view that the extended outer limit should not be crossed.
Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned, and the contention that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could permit condonation beyond 120 days was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on limitation and no interference was called for with the order refusing condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: A delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not condonable under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 where doing so would defeat the statutory objective of expeditious arbitral finality.