M/S CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISES versus PRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 1108 · Decided: 03-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 16 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 5 S.C.R. 1108 
A 
MIS CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENTERPRISES 
.... < 
v. 
PRINCIPAL SECY. IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS. 
(C.A.No. 2461 of 2008) 
B 
APRIL 3, 2008 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ & R.V. RAVEENDRAN 
AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 - S. 34 - Applicability 
c of s. 14 of the Limitation Act - Held, s. 14 of the Limitation Act, 
1963 is applicable to an application filed under s.34 of the 
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 -Limitation Act, 1963, s. 14 
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 
Words & Phrases: 
D 
"due diligence" - Meaning of 
In these two appeals, the question for consideration 
' 
before the Court was whether the provision of Section 14 
-. 
of the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application 
E submitted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act, 1996, for setting aside the award made 
by the arbitrator. 
Dismissing Civil Appeal No.2461 of 2008 and allowing 
F 
Civil Appeal No.2462 of 2008, the Court 
HELD: Per Panchal, J. (for himself and CJI) . 
. 
1. A bare reading of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of 
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 read with the 
proviso makes it abundantly clear that the application for 
G setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in sub-
section (2) of Section 34 will have to be made within three 
months. The period can further be extended, on sufficient 
cause being shown, by another period of 30 days but not 
thereafter. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, inter alia 
t .. 
H 
1108 
1 
l 
M/S CONSOLIDATED ENGG. ENT. v. PRINCIPAL SECY. 
1109 
IRRIGATION DEPTT. & ORS. 
provides that where any special or local law prescribes A 
for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation 
different from the period of limitation prescribed by the 
schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such 
period was the period prescribed by the schedule and 
for the purpose of determining any period of limitation 8 
prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any 
special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 
4 to 24 shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent, they 
are not expressly excluded by such .special or local law. 
When any special statute prescribes certain period of c 
limitation as well as provision for extension upto specifi~d 
time limit, on sufficient cause being shown, then the period 
of limitation prescribed under the special law shall prevail 
and to that extent the provisions of the Limitation Act shall 
stand excluded. As the intention of the legislature in · D 
enacting sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Act is that 
the application for setting aside the award should be made 
within three months and the period can be further 
extended on sufficient cause being shown by another 
period of 30 days but not thereafter, this Court is of the 
opinion that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation E 
Act would not be applicable because the applicability of 
Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded because 
of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 
[Para 10] [1126-C, D, E, F, G, H; 1127-A, B] 
2.1 However, merely because it is held that Section 5 
F 
of the Limitation Act is not applicable to an application 
filed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside an award, 
one need not conclude that provisions of Section 14 of 
the Limitation Act would also not be applicable to an G 
application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. 
[Para 11] [1127-C, D] 
2.2 The policy of Section 14 of the Act of 1996 is to 
afford protection to a litigant against the bar.of limitation 
when he institutes a proceeding which by reason of some H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A technical defect c_annot be decided on merits and is 
dismissed. While considering the provisions of Section 
14 of the Limitation Act, proper approach will have to be 
adopted and the provisions will have to be interpret~d so 
as to advance the cause of justice rather than abort the 
B proceedings. It will be well to bear in mind that an element 
of mistake is inherent in the invocation of Section 14. In 
fact, the section is intended to provide relief against the 
bar of limitation in cases of mistaken remedy or selection 
of a wrong forum. On reading Section 14 of the Act it 
C becomes clear that the legislature has enacted the said 
section to exempt a certain period covered by a bona fide 
litigious activity. Upon the words used in the section, it is 
not possible

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