Section 14 exclusion rejected for lack of due diligence and good faith in pursuing the wrong remedy against an arbitral award.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies only where the earlier proceeding was prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith and failed because the forum could not entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a like cause. Here, the party persisted with a writ petition despite objection that the proper remedy was under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and then pursued special leave instead of promptly taking the correct statutory route. The earlier proceedings were therefore not shown to satisfy Section 14, the excluded period could not be extended to the intervals outside those proceedings, and the Section 34 petition remained out of time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition and the special leave petition could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for computing limitation for a petition under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the resulting delay could be condoned.

Analysis: Section 14 requires that the earlier civil proceeding be prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith, and that it fail because the forum was unable to entertain it for defect of jurisdiction or a cause of like nature. The Applicant continued to pursue the writ petition even after objection that the proper remedy was under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and thereafter challenged the dismissal by way of special leave rather than immediately adopting the appropriate remedy. The earlier proceedings were therefore not shown to be prosecuted with due diligence or in good faith. The writ proceedings also did not fail for defect of jurisdiction; they failed because the Court declined to interfere in view of the alternative statutory remedy. The exclusion claimed could not be extended to the intervals outside the proceedings sought to be excluded, and the petition remained beyond the permissible limitation period.

Conclusion: The claim for exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected and the delay in filing the Section 34 petition was not condonable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the arbitral award was held to be time-barred and the petition could not be entertained on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 14 applies only where the prior proceeding is pursued with due diligence and good faith and fails because the forum lacked jurisdiction or was unable to entertain it for a cause analogous to jurisdictional defect.

---