In an application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the court noted that section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable when the proceedings instituted in the wrong forum were within the period of limitation and the mandatory conditions of bonafide mistake and due diligence were fulfilled.
Brief Facts:
The present application has been filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Arbitration proceedings were held between the instant parties, then the award was modified on application under section 33 of the Act and the subsequent award was announced. Then after receiving the award, the petitioner filed the writ petition against the award passed by the learned arbitrator before the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan. According to the petitioner that petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble Court of Rajasthan and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an application under Section 34 of the Act and was also granted the liberty to file an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the current petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
It has been contended by the petitioner that they approached the wrong forum on ill advice by the counsel. The respondents on the other side had contended that under section 34(3) of the Act, the petition can be filed within three months from the day of a signed copy of the award and a further 30-day period can be extended by the court if there are sufficient reasons. It was further contended that the limitation beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act cannot be extended and Section 5 of the limitation act was also not applicable for the purpose of the extension. The respondents further contended that the petitioner had voluntarily and wilfully chosen to file the writ petition in the high court of Rajasthan which was not maintainable and the fact that it was on the ill advice of the counsel was disputed.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that the petitioner has sought the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act and for the same, he has made references to certain Supreme Court Cases. The court then noted that it is a well-settled thing that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was further added by the court that this application would only happen if the proceedings instituted in the wrong forum are within the period of limitation as prescribed under section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the second condition is that all the mandatory conditions of the provisions are fulfilled.
As per the facts of the current case, the court noted that the filing of the writ petition was within the period of limitation as prescribed under section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, it was observed that the benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act could be availed by the petitioner on the condition that the proceedings before the wrong forum were bona fide and that it was pursued with due diligence. To assess the same, the court had asked the petitioner to submit the affidavit of the counsel on whose advice the petitioner went to the wrong forum. According to the affidavit, the court noted that both the requirements of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as mentioned before were missing and the petitioner being a public sector undertaking cannot avail the benefit of ignorance. As per the observations of the court, it was concluded that the petitioner could not avail the benefits of section 14 of the limitation act and in the absence thereof the petition under section 34 of the act was found to be beyond the limitation which could not be condoned.
The decision of the Court:
No merit was found in the petition and the same was dismissed.
Case Title: Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Ltd. V. Bansal Generation Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case no.: OMP(M) No. 67 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Navlesh Verma, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
