P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Sharma And Associates vs. New Delhi Municipal Council - (High Court of Delhi) (04 May 2022)

Application for setting aside of the award has to be made within three months after receipt of arbitral award and a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter

MANU/DE/1541/2022

Arbitration

Appellant impugns order whereby the application filed by the Appellant under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) has been dismissed holding that, the Appellant has failed to furnish any sufficient cause for not challenging the award within the prescribed period of limitation and consequently, the objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, impugning the arbitral award have been dismissed.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act stipulates that, application for setting aside of the award the application for setting aside of the award has to be made within three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award and if the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.

The trial court has held that, the Appellant has not been able to show that he was prevented by a sufficient cause from moving the application within the original period of limitation of 90 days. Trial court has held that, the period of 90 days expired on 20th February, 2020 prior to any restrictions imposed on international flights on account of outbreak of pandemic.

The Trial court has taken a hyper technical view of the provisions of the statute and the explanation given by the appellant for the delay. Section 34 provides for a period of three months to file objections and then a further period of 30 days subject to the applicant showing sufficient case for not filing the objections within three months. It is not in dispute that Appellant was not in the country till 29th February, 2020. Thereafter he was quarantined as per the advisory of the Government and a lockdown was imposed in the country. WHO had declared novel corona virus Covid-19 as a worldwide pandemic on 30th January, 2020.

Appellant has explained the circumstances as to why he could not file the objections within time. He was not in the country and on his return was quarantined and thereafter a nationwide lockdown was imposed. The Trial court has already held that, the objections have been filed within the period prescribed by the Proviso to Section 34(3) i.e. within 30 days beyond the three month period.

The explanation given by the Appellant amounts to sufficient cause for not filing the objections within the prescribed period of three months. Accordingly, the objections filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act are held to be within time in terms of the Proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The objections are restored to their original number on the file of the Trial Court.

Tags : SUFFICIENT CAUSE   OBJECTIONS   TIME PERIOD  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved