Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 260 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Ram Babu Garg

2016-03-29

ALOK ARADHE, ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. In this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”), appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 10.4.2014 passed by the trial Court by which objection preferred by the appellants under section 34 of the Act has been dismissed as barred by limitation. 2. Admittedly, an Award was passed by the Arbitrator on 6.2.2013 and the copy of the same was served on the appellants on 10.2.2013. The limitation for filing an application under section 34 of the Act expired on 11.6.2013. Admitedly, an objection was filed under section 34 of the Act on 10.2.2014. 3. Relevant extract of section 34 of the Act reads as under :- “34. Application for setting aside arbitral award. -- (1) Recourse to a Court against an arbitral award may be made only by an application for setting aside such award in accordance with sub-section (2) and subsection (3). (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three month have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal. Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” (4) xxx xxx xxx” 4. The aforesaid provision was subject matter of interpretation before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [ (2001)8 SCC 470 ], in which it has been held that the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to proceeding under section 34 of the Act. 5. Learned Government Advocate was unable to point out that the objection under section 34 of the Act was filed within the time limitation prescribed under section 34 (3) of the Act. 6. In view of the preceding analysis and in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (supra), we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.