LexASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY & SEW. BOARD versus SUBASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 403 ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY & SEW. BOARD v. SU BASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD. (Civil Appeal No(s). 2014 of 2006) JANUARY 19, 2012. [R.M. LODHA AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.) ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996: A B ss. 34(1), (3) and (4)of 1996 Act rlw ss. 2 (j) and 4 of c Limitation Act - Applications u/s 34 for setting aside arbitration awards filed after extended period of 30 days claiming benefit of s. 4 of Limitation Act for the inteNening Christmas holidays - Held: s. 2(j) of the 1963 Act when read in the context of s. 34(3) of the 1996 Act, makes it amply clearthatthe prescribed 0 period for making an application for setting aside arbitral award is three months - The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on sufficient cause being shown under the proviso appended to sub-s (3) of s. 34 of the 1996 Act, being not the 'period of/imitation' or the 'prescribed E period', s. 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted to the facts of the instant case - Thus, the applications made by the appellants for setting aside the arbitral award have rightly been dismissed by the District Judge as time barred - Limitation Act, 1963 - ss. 2 (j) and 4. F The appellants filed two applications uls 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (1996 Act) on 2.1.2004 for setting aside the awards dated 22.8.2003, copies whereof were received by them on 26.8.2003. The District Judge dismissed the said applications on the G ground of limitation. The High Court declined to interfere. In the instant appeal, the question for consideration of the Court was: whether the appellants were entitled to 403 H 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R. A extension of time u/s 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 Act Dismissing the appeal, the Court . HELD: 1.1. Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 enables a party to institute a suit, prefer an appeal or make B an application on the day court reopens where the prescribed period for any suit, appeal or application expires on the day when the court is closed. The crucial words in s. 4 of the 1963 Act are 'prescribed period'. Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act defines 'period of limitation' C which means the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the Schedule, and 'prescribed period' means the period of limitation computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act [para 13] [409-F-G] D 1.2. Section 2(j) of the 1963 Act when read in the context of s. 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, makes it amply clear that the prescribed period for making an application for setting aside arbitral award is three months. The period of 30 days mentioned in the E proviso that follows sub-s. (3) of s. 34 of the 1996 Act is not the 'period of limitation' and, therefore, not 'prescribed period' for the purposes of making the application for setting aside the arbitral award. The period of 30 days beyond three months which the court may extend on F sufficient cause being shown under the proviso appended to sub-s (3) of s. 34 of the 1996 Act being not the 'period of limitation' or the 'presr.ribed period', s. 4 of the 1963 Act is not, at all, attracted to the facts of the instant case. [para 13] [409-H; 410-A-C] G 1.3. In the instant case, the arbitral awards were received by the appellants on 26-8-2003. No application for setting aside the arbitral awards was made by the appellants before elapse of three months from the receipt H thereof. As a matter of fact, three months from the date ASSAM URBAN WATER SUPPLY & SEW. BOARD v. 405 SUBASH PROJECTS & MARKETING LTD. of the receipt of the arbitral award by the appellants A expired on 26-11-2003. The District Court had Christmas vacation for the period from 25-12-2003 to 1-1-2004. On reopening of the court, i.e., on 2-1-2004, admittedly, the appellants made applications for setting aside those awards u/s 34 of the 1996 Act. Thus, the applications B made by the appellants on 2-1-2004, for setting aside the arbitral award dated 26-8-2003 have rightly been dismissed by the District Judge as time barred. [para 11 and 14) [408-F-H; 409-A; 410-0] Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. 2001 (3) C Suppl. SCR 619 = (2001) 8 sec 470; and State of Maharashtra vs. Hindustan Construction Company Limited 2010 (4) SCR 46 = (2010) 4 sec 518, relied on. Case Law Reference: 2001 (3) Suppl. SCR 619 relied on 2010 (4) SCR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.