TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Section 34 arbitration petition dismissed as time-barred despite pooja vacation exclusion claims</h1> <h3>The State of West Bengal represented through the Secretary & Ors. Versus Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd.</h3> The State of West Bengal represented through the Secretary & Ors. Versus Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. - 2024 INSC 477 Issues:1. Calculation of limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.2. Applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act.3. Interpretation of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.Analysis:Calculation of limitation period for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act:The case involved a dispute between the State of West Bengal and a contractor appointed for the construction of a bridge. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award on 30th June 2022, directing the State to pay a sum to the contractor. The State received the award on the same day. The High Court dismissed the State's petition challenging the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground of limitation. The State contended that the limitation period should be calculated from 1st July 2022, making the petition filed on 31st October 2022 within the limitation period. However, the Court held that the limitation period started from the day the State received the award, i.e., 30th June 2022. Taking into account the exclusion of the first day as per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the limitation period expired on 30th September 2022, before the pooja vacation began on 1st October 2022.Applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act:The State argued that they should be entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the filing of suits, appeals, or applications on the day the court reopens if the prescribed period expires when the court is closed. However, the Court clarified that the prescribed period for making an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is three months, as per Section 2(j) of the Limitation Act. The Court emphasized that the period of 30 days mentioned in the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 is not part of the prescribed period or limitation period. Therefore, Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not apply in this context.Interpretation of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act:The Court reiterated that the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the extension of the limitation period. The Court highlighted that the limitation period could only be extended by a maximum of 30 days, as specified in the proviso. In this case, the maximum extension period expired on 30th October 2022, while the State filed the petition on 31st October 2022. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's decision that the State's petition was not filed within the specified limitation period under subsection (3) of Section 34, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 