TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther opined that the record of the case be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench. That is how this matter has come up for consideration before us. 3. As both the appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to the necessary facts of C.A.No.3498 of 2008 which are stated hereunder: The respondent filed a petition under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1983") raising certain claims about the works contract executed between the parties. The petition was partly allowed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal vide its award dated 18.6.2003. An amount of Rs. 6,05,624/- with interest @12% per annum was awarded from 24.04.1998 till the date of realisation. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a Civil Revision No.1330 of 2003 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 19 of the Act of 1983, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Limitation Act") to condone the delay in filing the revision. 5. The High Court observed in its order dated 07.05.2004 in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... constituting an appropriate Bench. Thus, the matter came before us for consideration. 10. First of all, in order to appreciate rival legal submissions, it would be necessary to consider Section 19 of the Act of 1983, which relates to revision and its limitation, which reads as under :- "19. High Court's power of revision -(1)- The High Court may suo motu at any time or on an application made to it within three months of the award by an aggrieved party, call for the record of any case in which an award has been made under this Act by issuing a requisition to the Tribunal, and upon receipt of such requisition the Tribunal shall send or cause to be sent to that Court the concerned award and record thereof. (2) If it appears to the High Court that the Tribunal - (a) has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, or with material irregularity; or (d) has misconducted itself or the proceedings; or (e) has made an award which is invalid or has been improperly procured by any party to the proceedings, the High C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um as it neither considers the aforesaid legal issues and submissions nor does it take into account the relevant legal provisions and the Scheme of the Act or various case laws on the point. The judgments relied on by this Court in the case of Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra) are not applicable to the issues arising here and are distinguishable on facts. 18. On the other side, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the connected C.A. No. 1145 of 2009, it is stated that the appellants have been trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court by stating that the Application was preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, by a bare perusal of the application for the condonation of delay, it can be seen that the application was preferred under the amended provisions of Section 19 of the Act. The benefit of the amended Section 19 of the Act could not be given to the appellants as the provisions were not made with retrospective effect. The amendment came into effect on 29.08.2005, much after the expiry period to prefer an application under Section 19 of the Act. The High Court has very rightly held that the Revision was time barred. Since no such provision existed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." Sub section (2) thus, provides that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to any Act which prescribes a special period of limitation, unless they are expressly excluded by that special law. 27. This Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpuravil Aboobacker(1995) 5 SCC 5 examined the question of whether the Limitation Act will apply to the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965. While holding that the appellate authority under the Kerala Act acts as a Court, it was held that since the Act prescribes a period of limitation, which is different from the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, and there is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, in the above (Lease & ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation." 30. According to Hukumdev Narain Yadav (supra), even if there exists no express exclusion in the special law, the court reserves the right to examine the provisions of the special law, and arrived at a conclusion as to whether the legislative intent was to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act. 31. Section 19 of the Act of 1983 prescribes a period of limitation of three months. This limitation period finds no mention in the schedule to the Limitation Act. Further, Section 19 does not expressly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 32. We now turn our attention to the case of Nasiruddin and Ors. (supra), on which reliance was placed by this court in the case of Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra), while dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The issue in that case was whether the deposit of rent under section 13(4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra). The issue therein was whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 36. The wording of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, reads thus: "34. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter." [emphasis laid by this Court] While examining the provision of Section 34, the Court in Popular Construction case (supra) observed as under: "8. Had the proviso to Section 34 merely provided for a period within which the Court could exercise its discretion, that would not have been sufficient to exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation ....