If the Conditions Are Met, Section 34 Applications Under the Arbitration Act May Be Subject to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, According to HC
Image Source: iPleaders
The court noted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply when the proceedings instituted in the wrong forum were within the period of limitation, and the mandatory conditions of bona fide mistake and due diligence were satisfied in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Brief Facts
According to Section 34 of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the current application has been made. The instant parties engaged in arbitration proceedings, after which the decision was modified in response to a request under Section 33 of the Act, and a new award was made public. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the Honourable High Court of Rajasthan challenging the award made by the knowledgeable arbitrator after obtaining it. According to the petitioner, the Hon’ble Court of Rajasthan decided on the case, and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with the freedom to submit an application under Section 34 of the Act and apply for a delay pardon. The petitioner then submitted the contemporary petition by Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The petitioner claims that they contacted the incorrect discussion board at the counsel’s awful advice. The respondents on the opposing side had argued that under Section 34(3) of the Act, the petition could be submitted within three months of receiving a signed copy of the award, and the court could extend the deadline by an additional 30 days if there were good grounds. Further, it was argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable for the extension and that the limitation beyond the time frame specified by Section 34(3) of the Act cannot be extended. The defendants similarly argued that the petitioner had made a deliberate and voluntary decision to report the writ petition inside the High Court docket of Rajasthan, which was unsupportable, and that the claim that it became made in opposition to the counsel’s terrible recommendation became challenged.
Observations of the Court
The Honorable Court found that the petitioner had referred to specific Supreme Court instances in assistance of his request to gain from Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The court continued by stating that it is well-established that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would be subject to Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The courtroom additionally said that this application could only be granted if the lawsuits initiated inside the incorrect forum are still in the duration of the barrier outlined in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and if all the provisions’ obligatory requirements are satisfied.
According to the circumstances of the current case, the court observed that the writ petition’s filing fell within the window of time outlined in Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Accordingly, it was determined that the petitioner could benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act provided the procedures before the incorrect forum were legitimate and diligently pursued. The petitioner was asked to provide the affidavit of the attorney whose recommendation led the petitioner to the incorrect forum so that the court could evaluate the same.
The petitioner cannot claim ignorance because it is a public sector operation, and the court noted that both of the prerequisites of Section 14 of the Limitation Act that were previously cited were missing, according to the affidavit. The petition under Section 34 of the Act was determined to be beyond the limitation, which could not be excused, based on the court’s findings that the petitioner was unable to benefit from Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The Decision of the Court: The petition was rejected because it lacked merit.
Team Profile
Latest entries
Article30 September 2023Can RPF Personnel Be Treated As ‘Workman’ For Compensation Purposes? SC Decides
English30 September 2023High Court Expounds: The Statement of an Eyewitness Must Be Free from Blemish and Devoid of Any Ambiguity, Uncertainty, and Loopholes
News29 September 2023Radhasoami Satsang Bhawan: The High Court Directs to Maintain the Status Quo On Land in Agra until Oct 5- News28 September 2023Denying Child’s Affection to Other Spouse Cruelty: High Court
