TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Clarifies 'Disposed of' in Section 34 Application under Arbitration Act</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the Delhi High Court's decision that the Section 34 application was timely filed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, ... Time limitation for passing arbitral award - whether Section 34 application could be said to be within the time mentioned in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- The judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Amit Suryakant Lunavat vs. Kotak Securities, Mumbai [2010 (9) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] does not reflect the correct position in law. Section 34(3) specifically speaks of the date on which a request under Section 33 has been “disposed of” by the Arbitral Tribunal. Thus, a “disposal” of the application can be either by allowing it or dismissing it. On this short ground the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court is correct in law - SLP dismissed. Issues:1. Timeliness of Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the timeliness of a Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An Arbitral Award was delivered on 30.10.2015 and received by the respondent on 07.11.2015. The respondent filed an application to correct the Award on 16.11.2015, which was later dismissed on 14.12.2015. Subsequently, on 11.03.2016, objections to the Award were filed under Section 34. The Additional District Judge found the application time-barred, stating it should have been made earlier. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, considering the time period for filing the Section 34 application started from the date the Section 33 application was disposed of, i.e., 14.12.2015.The main argument presented was regarding the interpretation of the term 'disposed of' in Section 34(3) of the Act. The petitioner contended that 'disposed of' should be read in conjunction with Section 33, implying that it refers to cases where the Award is corrected or modified. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Bombay High Court to support this interpretation. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that Section 34(3) clearly refers to the date on which a request under Section 33 is 'disposed of' by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Court clarified that the term 'disposal' can include both allowing or dismissing an application. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the Delhi High Court, ruling that the Section 34 application was within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
