Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 could be entertained after expiry of the outer limit of 120 days, and whether the delay in filing such challenge in the present case was liable to be condoned.
Analysis: The relevant provision prescribes a three-month period for filing an application to set aside an award, with a further extension of only thirty days on sufficient cause being shown, and not thereafter. The materials showed that the challenge was filed beyond that maximum period. The reliance placed on a decision dealing with Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to be inapposite because the statutory scheme governing a Section 34 challenge is materially different and admits of no extension beyond the prescribed limit. The limitation contained in Section 34(3) was treated as mandatory and incapable of being relaxed on the facts presented.
Conclusion: The delay beyond the statutory outer limit was not condonable, and the refusal to condone it was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award having been filed beyond the non-extendable period prescribed for Section 34 proceedings, the writ petitions failed.
Ratio Decidendi: The period for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be extended only up to the further thirty days permitted by statute and not beyond that limit.