Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Period of limitation for filing objections has to be reckoned from date on which signed copy of award was made available to parties MANU/SC/0135/2021 - (02 Mar 2021) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The present Civil Appeal arises from a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Appellant to challenge the arbitral award passed by a three-member Tribunal in favour of the Respondent Company. The issue which has arisen for consideration is as to whether the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 would commence from the date on which the draft award dated 27th April, 2018 was circulated to the parties, or the date on which the signed copy of the award was provided. 
Even though the award was pronounced on 27th April, 2018, the signed copy of the award was provided to the parties only on 19th May, 2018. The procedural orders of the Tribunal reveal that, on 27th April, 2018, only a copy of the award was provided to the parties to point out any computation error, any clerical or typographical error, or any other error of similar nature which may have occurred in the award on the next date. It was also recorded that, the third arbitrator had dissented, and would be delivering his separate opinion. The proceedings were then posted for 12th May, 2018. 
On 12th May, 2018, the third arbitrator pronounced his dissenting opinion. On that date, the Tribunal posted the matter to 19th May, 2018, to enable the parties to point out any typographical or clerical mistakes in the dissenting opinion, and for handing over the original record of the proceedings to the parties. On 19th May, 2018, the signed copy of the award and the dissenting opinion, alongwith the original record, were handed over to the parties, as also to each of the arbitrators. The Tribunal ordered the termination of the proceedings. 
The period of limitation for filing objections would have to be reckoned from the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties i.e. on 19th May, 2018 in the instant case. It is the admitted position that, the objections were filed within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Act, if reckoned from 19th May, 2018. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the objections have been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act from the date of receipt of the signed award. 
The judgment of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge and the impugned order passed by the High Court are accordingly set aside. The Petition filed under Section 34 of the Act is restored to the file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, to be decided on merits in accordance with law. Appeal allowed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Objections, Filing of, Limitation period</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>