GEOJIT FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. versus SANDEEP GURAV

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1427 · Decided: 19-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1427 : 2025 INSC 1021
Geojit Financial Services Ltd.  
v. 
Sandeep Gurav
(Civil Appeal No. 10970 of 2025)
19 August 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed 
by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not filed the 
arbitration petition u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 
1996 within the period of limitation prescribed therein.
Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, 34(3) – 
Computation of period of limitation – High Court dismissed 
the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not filed 
the arbitration petition u/s.34 within the period of limitation 
prescribed therein – Appellant contended that the impugned 
order is in direct conflict with Ved Prakash’s decision as the 
period of limitation for challenging an award would, in terms 
of s.34(3) of the 1996 Act, commence only from the date on 
which an application filed u/s.33 of the Act 1996 is disposed of:
Held: 1. The impugned order of the High Court does not reflect 
the correct position of law. [Para 20]
2. Where an application u/s.33 of the 1996 Act has not been 
filed, the legislature was conscious enough to state that it would 
be the date of the receipt of the award which would earmark the 
commencement of limitation for an application for setting aside 
of an award in terms of s.34 of the 1996 Act – Whereas, in the 
case where an application u/s.33 of the 1996 Act has been filed, 
the legislature was conscious enough to lay down that it would 
be the date of disposal of such request or application, that would 
be the starting point for calculation of limitation – Where such 
an application u/s.33 of the 1996 Act is filed, irrespective of 
whether the arbitral tribunal upon considering such application, 
either makes or does not make any correction or modification or 
1428
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
choose to render or to not render an additional award in terms of 
s.33 of the Act, 1996, the starting point for the period of limitation 
for challenging the same u/s.34(3) would be the date of disposal 
of such application u/s.33 by the arbitral tribunal as long as 
the application u/s.33 of the 1996 Act had been filed within the 
prescribed period of limitation – Any other interpretation to the 
contrary, would do violence to plain and unambiguous language 
used in s.34(3) of the Act, 1996 – What is of significance, u/s.34(3) 
of the Act, 1996 is the date on which the application or request 
u/s.33 came to be disposed by the arbitral tribunal – Where a 
request is made u/s.33 of the 1996 Act, it is immaterial for the 
purpose of computation of limitation u/s.34(3) whether such 
request fell within the purview of the said provision or not – What 
is material is only that such request was made in the manner 
delineated u/s.33 i.e., it fulfilled the twin conditions of being made; 
(I) “within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award” and 
(II) “with notice to the other party” stipulated therein – Thus, 
the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.  
[Paras 35(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), 37]
Case Law Cited
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. [2007] 3 
SCR 416 : (2007) 10 SCC 742 – distinguished.
M/s. Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India, 2018 SCC 
OnLine SC 3181; USS Alliance v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine 
SC 778 – referred to.
List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
List of Keywords
Period of limitation; Computation of limitation u/s.34(3); Arbitration 
petition u/s.34 not within the period of limitation; Date of the receipt 
of the award; Commencement of limitation for an application for 
setting aside of an award; Application u/s.33 of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996; Starting point for calculation of limitation; 
Date of disposal of application u/s.33; Correction or modification; 
Additional award; Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral 
award; With notice to the other party.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
1429
Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10970 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.02.2021 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in AN No. 67 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Sanjana Saddy.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The respondent although served with the n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.