Dismissed

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M/S Shree R.N. Metals India Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2020CMA/4214/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the dismissal of objections to an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court held the objections were barred by limitation as the appellant had not made a request under Section 33 and a writ petition was filed after the limitation expired.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed being devoid of merit as the objections were barred by limitation.

Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs M/S Shree R.N. Metals India Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4214/2019

¶3

Hindustan Zinc Limited, Through Its Authorized Signatory Having Its Registered Office As Yashad Bhawan, Swaroop Sagar, Udaipur, Rajasthan Pin 313001

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Shree R.n. Metals India Pvt. Ltd., G-1, 2, 22, Shubham Apartments, Plot No. 2 Near Ganpati Towers, Central Spine Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302023 Through Director

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.R.N.Mathur Senior Counsel with Mr.Puneet Singhvi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sandeep Taneja Mr. Prateek Kasliwal Mr. Rohan Jain Ms. Arani Mukherjee

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

DATE OF JUDGEMENT 23/01/2020

¶12

BY THE COURT (Per Hon’ble Pankaj Bhandari,J):

¶13

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 26.7.2019 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur whereby objection application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1996”) filed by the appellant was dismissed.

¶14

In brief the facts are that the award was passed by MSME Council on 9.10.2017 and it was conveyed to the appellantobjector on 30.10.2017. The award was received by the appellantobjector on 06.11.2017. The appellant-objector preferred a writ

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CMA-4214/2019]

¶17

petition before the High Court on 23.3.2018 which was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file objection under Section 34 of the Act on 5.4.2018. Objections were filed before the Court below on 13.4.2018. Limitation to challenge the award as per Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is three months which expires on 7.2.2018, as per proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 said period can be further extended by 30 days but not thereafter. The period if extended would thus expire on 9.3.2018. The objections were filed before the Court below on 13.4.2018, which were dismissed being barred by limitation.

¶18

It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the Court below has ignored the relevant provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (For shot “the Act of 1996”). Since a request was made under Section 33 objections could have been filed after the request was disposed by the Arbitral Tribunal. Non disposal of the application under Section 33 gives a right to a continuous cause of action to objector to file objection. Hence, the objections were within limitation.

¶19

To buttress the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons Vs. Union of India (2018 SCC Online (SC) 3181) and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. Principal Secretary Irrigation Department and ors. ((2008) 7 SCC 169). 5. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal. It is contended that sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 provides for the limitation for moving an application for settingaside the award, the same is required to be filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Arbitral Award and the said period can be extended only for a period of thirty days and

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CMA-4214/2019]

¶22

thereafter the Courts are barred from entertaining the application. It is contended that the award was received by the appellant on 6.11.2017, the objections were preferred on 13.4.2018, which was barred by limitation and the Court cannot extend limitation beyond thirty days as prescribed under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996.

¶23

Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Simplex Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India (2019) 2 SCC 455. 7. We have considered the contentions and perused the material available on record. 8. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the period of limitation would stand extended as a request was made under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 and the said request has not been disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal till date. This contention cannot be accepted for the very reason that the request to which the learned counsel for the appellant is referring to is a letter dated 2.11.2017 written by the respondent. The said letter neither refers to the award nor is it in the nature of an application under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 for correction of the award. Hence, the letter dated 2.11.2017 cannot be made a ground for extention of period of limitation. It is pertinent to note that even if letter dated 2.11.2017 is considered as a request under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 the same cannot extend the period of limitation as far as the appellant is concerned because it is not a request made by the appellant. As per proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, application for setting-aside may be made by the party making that application within three months from the date on which the party had received the award or if the party had made a request under Section 33 from the date when the request

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[CMA-4214/2019]

¶26

has been disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. No request whatsoever has been made by the appellant under Section 33 of the Act of 1996 . hence, the appellant is not entitled to claim extension of period of limitation for filing objection.

¶27

The contention of the counsel for the appellant that he had preferred a writ petition and was given liberty to file objection cannot also be considered a ground for extension of limitation as the writ petition filed by the appellant was filed after expiry of limitation provided under proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act.

¶28

Apex Court in Simplex Infrastructure Limited vs. Union of India (supra) has held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to an application challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. In view of the same, the Court below has not committed any error in rejecting the objections filed by the appellant being barred by limitation.

¶29

The present appeal is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

¶30

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶31

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶32

Reserved Judgement/teekam

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M/S Shree R.N. Metals India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Zinc Limited v. M/S Shree R.N. Metals India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inox Leisure Ltd. Vs Princess Infra and Development LLP

Mohammad Rafiq S/O Sh. Mohammad Yusuf Vs Mohammad Ali S/O Sh. Ahmad Baksh

State of Rajasthan Vs M/S Ans Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Technofab Engineering Limited Vs Government of Rajasthan

Ishoon (Correctly Spelled as Easun) Product of India Private Limited Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited

Union of India through the General Manager Vs M/S Anandi Lal Lalpuria, Proprietorship Firm