LexM/S R. K. TRANSPORT COMPANY versus M/S BHARAT ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD. (BALCO)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 401 : 2025 INSC 438 M/s R. K. Transport Company v. M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO) (Civil Appeal No. 4763 of 2025) 03 April 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the applicability of s.12 of the Limitation Act to proceedings u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and whether the application filed by the respondent u/s.34 was barred by limitation. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.12 – Limitation period for filing an application to set aside an arbitral award – Applicability of s.12 of the 1963 Act to s. 34 proceedings – On facts, arbitral award in favour of the appellant signed and delivered to respondent on 09.04.2022 – Respondent filed application to set aside the award on 11.07.2022 – Trial court held the application to be within limitation as the 3-month period expired on 09.07.2022, which was a second Saturday and the following day was a Sunday, and since the court was closed on these days, the respondent filed application on the next working day-11.07.2022 – Recall application by appellant – Trial court allowed the same holding that s.34 application was barred by limitation as the 3-month period expired on 08.07.2022 on which day the court was working – Appeal u/s.37 by respondent, allowed by the High Court – Correctness: Held: Statutory language of s.34(3) clearly stipulates the limitation period as “three months”, as opposed to the condonable period as “thirty days” – Difference in language unambiguously demonstrates the legislative intent that the limitation period is 3 calendar months as opposed to 90 days – Thus, it cannot be said that 3 months must be read as 90 days in the context of s.34(3) – Nothing in the * Author 402 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports statutory language or scheme of s.34(3) that is contraindicative that s.12(1) does not apply – On facts, since s.12(1) applies, date of receiving signed copy of award must be excluded and 3-month limitation period must be reckoned from 10.04.2022 which expires on 09.07.2022, which was a second Saturday when the court was not working – Benefit of s.4 of the Limitation Act will inure to the benefit of the respondent – Thus, the respondent’s application filed on 11.07.2022-next working day of the court, must be considered as being filed within the limitation period – No delay in filing the application and sufficient cause need not be shown for condonation of delay – High Court rightly allowed the appeal u/s.37 and held that the respondent’s application u/s.34 was filed within the limitation period. [Paras 8, 12-15] Case Law Cited My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. Faridabad Implements Pvt Ltd., 2025 INSC 56 – relied on. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers [2010] 8 SCR 1025 : (2010) 12 SCC 210; Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited [2023] 4 SCR 361 : (2023) 8 SCC 453; State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd. [2024] 7 SCR 1 : (2024) 7 SCC 257 – referred to. List of Acts Limitation Act, 1963; Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. List of Keywords Barred by limitation; Arbitral award; Limitation period as “three months”; Condonable period as “thirty days”; Working day of the court; Recall application; 3 months not 90 days; Condonable period; Limitation Act applicable to arbitration proceedings; Excluding day of receiving signed copy of award. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4763 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2024 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in ARBA No. 17 of 2023 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 403 M/s R. K. Transport Company v. M/s Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. (BALCO) Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Sanjay Abbot, Ms. Devanshi Singh, Manohar Pratap, Peeyush Bhatia, Sulakshan V.S., Harsh Srivastava. Advs. for the Respondent: Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Rishabh Garg, Ravi Raghunath. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. It is just as necessary to follow a precedent as it is to make a precedent. 3. The present appeal arises out of an order of the Chhattisgarh High Court dated 27.09.2024 by which it allowed the respondent’s appeal under Section 37 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.