https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462706 The thirty-day period available for condonation under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a discretionary extension, not the prescribed limitation period. On that basis, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not carry the filing date to the next reopening day when the last day of that condonable period falls during court vacation. The distinction from Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as material because Section 4 applies only to the prescribed limitation period. The result is that a petition filed beyond the three-month period and relying on the condonable thirty days could not be saved by Section 10. en-us Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:20:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462706 The thirty-day period available for condonation under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a discretionary extension, not the prescribed limitation period. On that basis, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not carry the filing date to the next reopening day when the last day of that condonable period falls during court vacation. The distinction from Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as material because Section 4 applies only to the prescribed limitation period. The result is that a petition filed beyond the three-month period and relying on the condonable thirty days could not be saved by Section 10. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462706