On 13th September, a bench of Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Vibhu Bakru, while hearing a case regarding delay in filing a petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, held that the delay in filing the said petition could be condoned if the petitioner satisfied the court that it was prevented from filing a petition within the stipulated period of three months from the receipt of the impugned award.

The court further held the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is available only in cases whether the party seeking such benefit had pursued the prior proceedings bona fide and with due diligence.

Facts of the case:

The petitioner had filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning an arbitral award dated 25.06.2019 delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid application praying that the delay of 632 days in filing the above-captioned petition be condoned. Thus, the principal controversy to be addressed is whether the Court can condone the delay in filing the above-captioned petition and if so, whether there are sufficient grounds to do so

Contention of the petitioner:

The petitioner claims that he had filed the above-captioned petition in this Court on 17.06.2021. The same was returned under objections and it was re-filed on 07.08.2021. According to the petitioner, there is a delay of ten days in re-filing the petition and the petitioner has sought condonation of the same.

Contention of the respondent:

Mr Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted the following contention:

  1. It was submitted that the petition filed before the learned District Judge was beyond the period of three months and thirty days and therefore, even if the delay in filing is reckoned from the date on which the above captioned petition was first filed before the learned District Judge, the same was beyond the period of thirty days that could be condoned by the Court.
  2. He submitted that the period of limitation of three months as mentioned in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is required to be construed as three calendar months Thus, according to him, the first calendar month from 26.06.2019 (the date of receipt of the award, the second month would expire on 24.08.2019; and the third month would expire on 23.09.2019.

Observation and Judgement of the court:

The following observation has been made by the hon’ble bench of the court:

  1. The expression ‘three months’ as used in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act does not refer to a period of ninety days but a period of three calendar months. The contention that the period of one month would be one day less than the corresponding date for every one month is obviously erroneous. There is no basis for computing a period described in calendar months in this manner.
  2. The benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is available only in cases whether the party seeking such benefit had pursued the prior proceedings bona fide and with due diligence.
  3. Although the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act must be extended liberally. It is incumbent upon the party seeking such benefit to establish from the record that the necessary conditions as stipulated in Section 14 of the Limitation Act are met.

In the light of the above, it was observed that the contention that the delay in the present case far exceeds thirty days beyond the period of limitation of three months and therefore, this Court cannot condone the same. Thus, the benefit of proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act would not be available to the petitioner.

Thus, the petition was dismissed. 

Read Judgment @latestlaws.com 

Picture Source :

 
Anusree