Background of the case: The appellants entered into lease agreements with the respondent, the property owner. Following disputes, the respondent invoked arbitration, resulting in an arbitral award in its favor on 04.02.2022. The appellants received a scanned copy of the award on the same day and a signed hard copy on 14.02.2022, marking the start of the limitation period. The three-month limitation under Section 34(3) expired on 29.05.2022, with a further 30-day condonable period ending on 28.06.2022. This fell during the High Court's summer vacation (04.06.2022 to 03.07.2022). The appellants filed the Section 34 petition, along with an application for condonation of delay, on 04.07.2022, the day the court reopened, in line with a notification from the Delhi High Court on 20.05.2022. Meanwhile, the respondent-initiated execution of the award.
Decision of the Ld. High Court under Section 34 and Section 37 of the ACA: The Ld. Single Judge dismissed the appellants' Section 34 application on 07.02.2023, ruling that it was barred by limitation. The appellants then filed an appeal under Section 37, which was also dismissed by the Ld. Division Bench on 03.04.2024.
The Hon'ble High Court stated that the limitation period commenced from 14.02.2022, when the appellants received a signed copy of the award. Under Section 34(3), an application to set aside the award must be made within a period of 3 months from the receipt of the award, which comes up to 14.05.2022. Thus, the High Court dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the thirty-day condonable period in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is not a prescribed limitation period. Additionally, the court emphasized on the fact that the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act could not be extended to the condonable period under section 34(3). The court also emphasized that the Supreme Court decision in Bhimashankara Sahakari remained binding, despite a pending review petition. The Ld. Court also dismissed all the pending applications related to the case.
Issues before the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
- Do the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to Section 34 proceedings, and to what extent?
- Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act apply to Section 34(3) as per an analysis of the statutory scheme as well as precedents of this Court on the issue? If Section 4 applies, does it apply only to the 3-month limitation period or also the 30-day condonable period?
- In light of the answer in (ii), will Section 10 of the GCA apply to Section 34(3), and if so, in what manner?
Findings of the Supreme Court: Regarding the issue of the extent to which the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings under Section 34, the court observed that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act mandates that if any special or local law specifies a limitation period differing from the one in the Schedule, then Section 3 of the Limitation Act will apply as though that period is the one listed in the Schedule. Additionally, Sections 4 to 24 will apply to the extent they are not explicitly excluded by such special or local law. Hence, Section 29(2) essentially incorporates the provisions of the Limitation Act into special and local laws with different limitation periods, unless those laws expressly exclude them, and concluded that since section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA, and the 3-month limitation period expired on a working day (29.05.2022), Section 4 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable.
Regarding the issue of whether section 4 of the Limitation Act applicable to Section 34(3) based on the statutory framework and relevant precedents, and if so, does it apply solely to the 3-month limitation period, or does it extend to the additional 30-day condonable period as well, the court stated that once it is established that the Limitation Act applies to arbitrations and court proceedings under the ACA, it is essential to examine its relevance to Section 34 proceedings. Section 34(3) sets the limitation period and the extendable period for filing a Section 34 application. From the provision, it is evident that an application to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 must be within 3 months from the receipt of the award or the date of disposal of a request under Section 33. This is the period of limitation. Further, the court may exercise discretion to entertain the application, within a further period of 30 days, if sufficient cause is shown, but not thereafter. The court clarified the distinction between the prescribed limitation period and the condonable period, stating that the latter cannot be treated as part of the former. Thus, it concluded that section 4 of the Limitation Act benefits a party only when the "prescribed period'', i.e. the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) expires on a court holiday. In such a situation, the application under Section 34 will be considered as having been filed within the limitation period if it is filed on the next working day of the court.
With respect to the issue of whether section 10 of the GCA apply to Section 34(3), the court answered against the appellant by virtue of the clear and express language of the proviso to Section 10 of the GCA,where its proviso explicitly excludes its application to proceedings governed by the Limitation Act, which applies to arbitration proceedings. Considering that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to a Section 34 proceeding, the appellant cannot simultaneously claim benefit of Section 10 of the GCA. Since the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA is rejected at the very threshold, it is no longer necessary to consider the interpretation of "prescribed period'' under Section 10 of the GCA as including the condonable period. Thus, the court concluded its findings by stating that Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to the aid of the party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the court was working. The 30-day condonable period expiring during the court holidays will not survive and neither Section 4, nor any other provision of the Limitation Act, will inure to the benefit of the party to enable filing of the Section 34 application immediately after reopening. Hence, the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's ruling of petition being time-barred, reaffirming the sanctity of limitation periods under section 34(3) of the ACA. Additionally, no additional costs were imposed on the parties. The Hon'ble Court also reiterated that the parliament should amend the laws to prevent parties from losing legal remedies due to technical limitations.
Analysis: The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. emphasizes the critical importance for litigants to remain highly vigilant about adhering to procedural deadlines. This decision showcases the judiciary's constrained ability to extend deadlines within the confines of statutory frameworks such as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
The decision also encourages Parliament to reassess the relationship between the ACA's mandatory timelines and the Limitation Act, considering modern practicalities and the risk of losing valid challenges due to court closures. Further, it also emphasizes strict adherence to deadlines in arbitration challenges, stressing timely filings and minimal judicial interference. It suggests that any modification to this strict limitation regime would require a clear legislative amendment.
Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with computation of time, and states that if a Central Act or Regulation requires any act or proceeding to be done in a Court or office on a specific day or within a certain period, and the Court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the period, the act or proceeding is considered done in time if completed on the next day the Court or office is open. It stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies, and thus, will not benefit the applicant when the 30- day condonable period expires on a court holiday.
The courts across India, have consistently held the position where it upheld the orders of dismissing a section 34 petition as time-barred, and that section 4 of the Limitation Act applies ONLY to the prescribed period of 3 months and not to the condonable period of 30 days beyond that. Supreme Court cases such as Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited, State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd, Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subhash Projects & Marketing Limited have upheld this proposition, with the latest order of Himachal Pradesh High Court (National Highway Authority Of India vs Narayan Dass) affirming the proposition.
However, it is evident from several cases that strict limitations can deny a party's right to challenge an award even when delays are unavoidable, which could lead to injustice in genuine cases. The judgment serves as a cautionary tale for all parties involved in arbitration, underlining the necessity for precision and timeliness in legal proceedings, especially in arbitration, where quick resolution of dispute is crucial. This case thus stands as a significant reminder of the procedural rigors that litigants must navigate and the ongoing dialogue between the judiciary and legislature in evolving the legal system to be both fair and effective. Moreover, it calls attention to the potential need for legislative reform to strike a better balance between the strict enforcement of procedural deadlines and ensuring fair access to justice. The court stated that the statutes should not set different limitation periods for filing suits, appeals, and applications.
Instead, all statutes should adhere to a uniform limitation period, such as 90 days, for filing Special Leave Petitions or Appeals to the Supreme Court of India. Courts should have the authority to excuse delays if a sufficient cause is demonstrated, rather than being limited to a fixed period of 15 or 30 days for condoning delays, as specified in some statutes. By addressing these procedural strictures, lawmakers can help mitigate the risk of unjust outcomes due to rigid adherence to deadlines, thereby fostering a more equitable legal landscape.
Further, the author is of the opinion that the 30-days condonable period (beyond the prescribed period of 3 months) should also fall within the purview of benefitting from Section 4, provided it is supported with compelling evidence to justify the delay. This interpretation may seem overly technical, especially since the statutory language does not expressly differentiate between the two periods. A more expansive reading of section 4 could have allowed equitable relief without disrupting the objectives of the Arbitration Act. Moreover, strict adherence to procedural timelines can lead to alleged substantial injustice, especially in cases like this where the delay was minimal and caused by circumstances beyond the apparent control of the appellant.
While ACA emphasizes efficiency, it should not do so at the cost of denying access to justice where the parties are disproportionately affected due to legitimate hardships. Moreover, since the Supreme Court reiterated the need for legislative amendment, the parliament should amend Section 34(3) to explicitly include provisions for condoning delays in exceptional circumstances, or procedural hurdles during the court vacations, provided there is compelling evidence to justify the same, to ensure that arbitration law strikes a balance between efficiency and justice.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
