GULBARGA UNIVERSITY versus MALLIKARJUN S. KODAGALI AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 01-08-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 703 
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY 
A 
II. 
MALLIKARJUN S. KODAGALI AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.4747 of 2008) 
AUGUST 1, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Limitation Act, 1963: s. 14 - Applicability of, to arbitration 
proceedings under s. 34 of 1996 Act - Held: Applicable - Arbi- c 
tration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - s. 34 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: &. 34 - Time spent 
in filing application under s. 34 before wrong forum - Exclusion 
of, for determining the period of limitation - Held: SuclJ issue to 
be decided by Principal Civil Court - Matter remitted to princi-
D 
pal Civil Court for fresh consideration - Limitation Act, 1963. 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal were: (1) whether s.14 of Limitation Act, 
1963 is applicable to proceeding under s.34 of Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996 and (2) whether the period spent E 
in moving application under s.34 of 1996 Act in wrong fo-
rum would stand excluded for determining the period of 
limitation. 
Allowing the appeal on first question and remitting 
F 
the matter on the second question to Principal Civil Court, 
""' 
the Court 
HELD: 1. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that 
in terms of sub-section (2) of s.34 of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, an arbitral award may be set aside only G 
... 
if one of the conditions specified therein is satisfied. Sub-
section (3) of s.34 provides for the period of limitation 
't-
within which an application under s.34 of the Act is to be 
filed. The proviso appended thereto empowers the court 
703 
H 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
A to entertain an application despite expiry of the period of 
limitation specified therein, namely, three months. No pro-
vision, however, exists as regards application of s.14 of 
the Limitation Act. Sub-section (2) of s.29 would apply to 
an arbitration proceedings and consequently s.14 of the 
B Limitation Act would also. be applicable. [Para 7] [712-F-
H; 713-A-B] 
State of Goa v. Western Builders (2006) 6 SCC 239; Na-
tional Aluminimum Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel & Fabrications 
(P)Ltd. (2004) 1 sec 540 - relied on. 
c 
2~. The question, as to whether the period spent by 
the appellant in prosecuting the arbitrat)on proceedings 
should be·excluded or not is a matter which rnust fall for 
~ 
' 
dedsion. before ttJe Principal Civil Court. The necessary 
' 
D corollary of the aforementioned finding is that as fo 
whether the appellant had been prosecuting, with due di!i-
gence another proceeding or not would fan for consider-
~ 
ation before the Principal Civil Court. [Para 8] [713-C] 
•' 
Mallikprjun. v. Gulbarga University (2004) 1 SCC ~72; 
r-
E Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U. P. Smal! lndµstries Corporation 
Limited (19~9) 2 SCC 166; Union; of lndifJ v. Mis. ·popular Con-
J 
structions Company AIR (2001) SC 4010; Union of India & Apr. 
, 
v. Bhavna Engineering Co. (2007) 5 RAJ 458 - referred to. 
... 
F 
Case Law Referen~e 
(2006) 6 sec 239 
relied on 
Para 4 
>-
: 2004) 1 sec 540 
relied on 
Para 5 
(2004) 1 sec 372 
referred to, 
Para 3 
· ("1999) 2 sec 166 
referred to 
Para 3 
G 
, 
,.Al~ .(2001).SC 4010 
referred to 
Para 4 
t 
· .. .; 
(2007) 5 RAJ 458 
referred to 
Para,6 
~· 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :·CivilAppeal No. 4747 
of 2008 
H 
~ 
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY v. MALLIKARJUN S. 
705 
KODAGALI & ANR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2005 of A 
the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Misc. First Appeal 
No. 717 of 2004 
Or. M.P. Raju, Mary Scaria and Ashwani Bhardwaj for the 
Appellant. 
B 
G.V. Chandrashekhar, N.K. Verma and P.P. Singh for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court wad delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
c 
2. Application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in 
a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Concilia-
tion Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') is in question in this appeal 
which arises out of a judgment and order dated 31.1.2005 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscel-
D 
laneous First Appeal No. 717 of 2004 whereby and whereunder 
the objection filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of 
the Act was held to be barred by limitation. 
3. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of the matter E 
is as under: 
The parties hereto entered into a contract of construction 
of an indoor stadium on or about 21.5.1993. The said contract 
contained a clause pertaining to resolution of dispute 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.