Section 14 Limitation Act Applicable To Application Submitted U/S. 34 Of A&C Act: Supreme Court

The judgment before the Apex Court arose from the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The short question that arose for consideration was whether the period commencing from October 20, 2011 to January 20,2012 should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways Act, 1956.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Manoj Misra asserted, “The remedies under Sections 34 and 37 are precious. Courts of law will keep in mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while calculating the period of limitation for invoking these jurisdiction.”

Advocate Chritarth Palli represented the Appellant while Advocate Alok Sangwan represented the Respondents.

In this case, the land belonging to the appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award. A Regular First Appeal was filed before the High Court on an erroneous understanding. The Registry of the High Court notified certain defects which was received by the concerned Advocate on January 20, 2012. It was only thereafter when the appellant came to know about the appropriate action available to him, being the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, and he instituted proceedings under Section 34.

The District Judge dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by limitation as determined by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Popular Construction Co., 2002( 1) RCR (Civil) 124. The appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act was also dismissed by the impugned order.

For the appellant, it was submitted that his client was entitled to the exclusion of period from October 20, 2011 to January 20, 2012 under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

For the Respondent, it was submitted that the language of Section 14 is mandatory and on the basis of the said provision it cannot be said that the appellant exercised due diligence in approaching the Court by filing the Section 34 petition.

The Court held that the present matter was squarely covered by its judgment in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others,2008 (7) SCC 169, wherein it has been observed that Section 14 of the Limitation Act does not provide for a fresh period of limitation but only provides for the exclusion of a certain period. The provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award.

The Bench also said, “We may hasten to add that when the substantive remedies under Sections 34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory prescription, it is necessary to interpret the limitation provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to challenge an arbitral award will be lost.”

Applying section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Bench held that there is sufficient cause for excluding the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 23.02.2012. “In view of the fact that this period is excluded, the appellant will be entitled to the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Act”, it added.

Thus, allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment of the High Court and also the order of the District Judge, the Bench restored the Section 34 petition in Arbitration case to its original number.

Cause Title: Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 944]

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Chritarth Palli,Nilanjan Sen, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Deepak Samota,AOR Shubham Bhalla, Advocate Chritarth Pall

Respondent: Advocates Alok Sangwan, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, AOR Sunny Kadiyan

Click here to read/download Order