LexKIRPAL SINGH versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1329 : 2024 INSC 944 Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 12849-12856 of 2024) 21 November 2024 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned u/s.14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 incorporated in the National Highways Act, 1956. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 and s.37 – National Highways Act, 1956 – A land belonging to appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011 – A Regular First Appeal was filed before the High Court on 20.10.2011 on an erroneous understanding – The Registry of the High Court notified certain defects on 09.11.2011 and it is said to have been received by the concerned Advocate only on 20.01.2012 – Appellant filed an application u/s.34 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, however, the same was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation – Correctness: Held: When the substantive remedies u/ss.34 and/or 37 of the Arbitration Act are by their very nature limited in their scope due to statutory prescription, it is necessary to interpret the limitation provisions liberally, or else, even that limited window to challenge an arbitral award will be lost – The remedies u/ss.34 and 37 are precious – Courts of law will keep in mind the need to secure and protect such a remedy while calculating the period of limitation for invoking these jurisdictions – Applying s.14 of the Limitation Act, there is sufficient cause for excluding the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 23.02.2012 – In view of the fact that this period is excluded, the appellant will be entitled to the statutory remedy u/s.34 of the Act. [Paras 10, 11] 1330 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and Others [2008] 5 SCR 1108 : 2008 (7) SCC 169 – relied on. Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [2001] Supp. 3 SCR 619 : 2002 (1) RCR (Civil) 124 – referred to. List of Acts Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; National Highways Act, 1956; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963; Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Period of limitation; Exclusion of period; Arbitration; Sufficient Cause. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 12849- 12856 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2019 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO Nos. 800 of 2013, 1278 of 2015, 1290 of 2015, 7453 of 2014, 7454 of 2014, 2887 of 2015 and 8136 of 2014 Appearances for Parties Chritarth Palli, Nilanjan Sen, Vijay Kumar Dwivedi, Deepak Samota, Shubham Bhalla, Advs. for the Appellant. Alok Sangwan, Sumit Kumar Sharma, Rajat Sangwan, Sunny Kadiyan, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dated 19.10.2019 [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1331 Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, New Delhi & Ors. in FAO Nos. 800/2013, 7453, 7454, 8136/2014, 1278, 1290, 2000 and 2887/2015. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the period commencing from 20.10.2011 to 20.01.2012 should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act while reckoning the period of limitation for filing objections under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19961 incorporated in the National Highways Act, 1956.2 3. The facts relevant for our decision are that the land belonging to the appellant was acquired under the NH Act leading to passing of an award dated 25.07.2011. Application for a certified copy of the award was made on 12.08.2011 and the same was received on 08.09.2011. Thereafter, a Regular First Appeal was filed before the High Court on 20.10.2011 on an erroneous understanding. 4. The Registry of the High Court notified certain defects on 09.11.2011 and it is said to have been received by the concerned Advocate only on 20.01.2012. It is only thereafter when the appellant came to know about the appropriate action available to him, being the statutory remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitrati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.