LI Network
Published on: January 8, 2024 at 00:10 IST
The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed the inflexible nature of the limitation period specified in Section 34(3) of the A&C Act, stipulating a rigid timeline of 3 months plus 30 days for filing challenges.
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna elucidated that petitions challenging arbitral awards must be lodged within 3 months from receiving the award, with an additional grace period of 30 days wherein the court holds discretionary power to condone filing delays.
However, once this 3-month window, along with the grace period, elapses, the court lacks authority to condone any further delays.
In the reviewed cases, petitions under Section 34 of the Act were filed subsequent to the arbitral award issued on 14.03.2019, seeking condonation of delays ranging from 50 to 55 days in filing or refiling applications.
The Single Judge dismissed these applications, deeming them invalid due to filing beyond the stipulated period of 3 months and 30 days under Section 34(3) of the Act.
The Court’s analysis highlighted that the initial filing and the first refiling were deficient, lacking the copy of the award and essential prayer. Only during the second refiling were these defects rectified, albeit after the expiration of the 120-day period, inclusive of the 30-day grace period.
Emphasizing the significance of including the award with the challenge petition, the Court underscored that the absence of the award hampers the Court’s ability to comprehend the grounds outlined in the objection petition, making it impossible to determine whether the petition warrants consideration or outright dismissal.
Highlighting the necessity of a prayer to nullify the impugned award, the Court emphasized that petitions without a prayer amount to hollow submissions devoid of relief, rendering them invalid.
Without a stated relief sought in the petition, the Court remains unable to interpret the relief sought based on the petition’s contents, rendering it non-maintainable.
The Court’s stance underscored the risks of prolonged arbitration delays if condonation of delays beyond the prescribed 3 months plus 30 days is allowed. Such delays, the Court reasoned, would defeat the purpose of opting for arbitration, rendering it ineffective.
Consequently, the Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision to dismiss the petition as time-barred due to non-compliance with the prescribed limitation period.
