Applicant sought condonation of a three-month delay in filing objections under Section 34 to an arbitral award. Court held Section 34(3) allows only 30 additional days and the general Limitation Act provision does not apply; dismissed the application and objections as barred by limitation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
2024:HHC:10550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
OMP(M) No.13 of 2024 Decided on : 04.11.2024
Tilak Raj
…Applicant/Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P.
…Respondent
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick and Mr. H.S. Rawat, Addl. Advocates General.
Virender Singh, Judge
Applicant-Tilak Raj has filed the application,
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), for setting aside the award, dated 28.07.2023, passed by the sole Arbitrator, in case titled as ‘ Tilak Raj Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ’.
2
2024:HHC:10550
“34(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months 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.”
clear that the delay of only 30 days can be condoned by the Court, in case, the applicant is able to make out a case
3
2024:HHC:10550
that he/she was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application, whereas, by virtue of the present application, the delay of three months has been sought to be condoned, which cannot be done, by this Court. Moreover, the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable, as, by way of the specific provision, in the shape of Section 34(3), the Legislature, in its wisdom, has provided the time limit for filing the objection, as three months, with the stipulation that the delay of 30 days can be condoned.
(Virender Singh) Judge
November 04, 2024
Gaurav Thakur
1 issue framed by the court
Can a three-month delay in filing a Section 34 objection to an arbitral award be condoned when Section 34(3) permits only a further 30 days?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Tilak Raj
State of H.P.
Virender Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
