Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

The State of West Bengal represented through the Secretary and Ors. Vs. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 477) - (Supreme Court) (08 Jul 2024)

Party challenging an arbitral award beyond the limitation period cannot avail the benefit of Section 4 of Limitation Act

MANU/SC/0561/2024

Arbitration

The first Appellant - the State of West Bengal appointed the Respondent as a contractor for the construction of a bridge. As there was a dispute between the parties, the Respondent invoked the arbitration Clause in the contract, and a sole arbitrator was appointed. On 30th June 2022, the Arbitral Tribunal passed an award directing the Appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 2,11,67,054.00 to the Respondent with interest thereon, as directed. The counter- claim made by the Appellants was dismissed. The Appellants received a copy of the award on the same day.

The Appellants filed a petition Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Arbitration Act') to challenge the award. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the Appellants on the ground of bar of limitation. The High Court held that, the period of limitation for filing a petition Under Section 34 expired on 30th September 2022. Therefore, the Appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act of 1963 ('the Limitation Act').

The facts are undisputed. The award made by the Arbitral Tribunal on 30th June 2022 was served upon the Appellant on the same day. Between 1st October 2022 and 30th October 2022 (both days inclusive), the High Court was closed for pooja vacation. The petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed on 31st October 2022.

As per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the day from which the limitation period is to be reckoned must be excluded. In the facts of the case in hand, the three months provided by way of limitation expired a day before the commencement of the pooja vacation, which commenced on 1st October 2022. Thus, the prescribed period within the meaning of Section 4 of the Limitation Act ended on 30th September 2022. Therefore, the Appellants were not entitled to take benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act. As per the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 34, the period of limitation could have been extended by a maximum period of 30 days. The maximum period of 30 days expired on 30th October 2022. The petition was filed on 31st October 2022.

Thus, the High Court was right in holding that the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was not filed within the period specified under Sub-section (3) of Section 34. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal, and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Tags : TIME PERIOD   BAR   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved