The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an Application submitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the impugned award was passed on 14th July 2024 by Respondent No.1 and was received by the Applicant on 2nd August 2023. Thereafter, on the advice of the former advocate, the Applicant filed the application before the Respondent No.1-MSME Council. Thereafter, the recall application was filed. Upon the filing of the recall application, the applicant believed that it had acted within the prescribed period as envisaged under Section 34(3), read with its proviso of the Arbitration Act. Further, the Applicant genuinely believed that the MSME Council would promptly consider and decide on the Application. The Applicant was thereafter served with the Execution Application in March 2024, as the MSME Council had failed to consider the Recall Application. The Applicant was advised by their erstwhile Advocate that it would be appropriate to approach the Court by filing a Petition. Furthermore, the writ petition was filed seeking direction to the MSME council to hear and dispose of the recall application. The said writ petition is pending before the court. Later on, the Advocate of the applicant had advised to file the present petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The Applicant is seeking condonation of 272 days in filing of the Petition.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Applicant contended that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It was furthermore contended that the former counsel advised the Applicant to file an application for recall and thereafter filed a Writ Petition instead of filing the present Arbitration Petition. Also, section 14 of the limitation act is to be liberally construed to include within it quasi-judicial tribunals/forum. The Applicant relied upon the judgments titled State of Goa Vs. Western Builders,1; Gulbarga University Vs. Mallikarjun S. Kodagali, Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Irrigation Department, and Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that it is well settled that Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to an Application submitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
The court furthermore observed that the recall application, which was filed on the advice of the former counsel, is to be taken into consideration and the conditions which are required to be satisfied before Section 14 of the Limitation Act can be pressed into service.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that there exists no delay in filing of the present Arbitral Petition as the time taken in prosecuting the prior proceedings is to be excluded.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court disposed of the writ petition.
Case Title: Kisan Mouldings Limited V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) Konkan Thane & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla
Case No.: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 25371 of 2024
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Yohaann Limathwalla, Mr. Pranav Nair, Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho, Ms. Mehak Shah i/b Mr. Amit Tungare, Ms. Jill Rodricks, Ms. Prisca Fernandes and Mr. Prathamesh Nirkhe
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
