LexMY PREFERRED TRANSFORMATION & HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD. & ANR. versus M/S FARIDABAD IMPLEMENTS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 729 : 2025 INSC 56 My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2025) 10 January 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha* and Pankaj Mithal*, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by time; whether the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 apply to s.34 of the 1996 Act and to what extent; does s.4 of the 1963 Act apply to the 3-month limitation period or also to the 30-day condonable period in s.34(3); and will s.10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to s.34(3) and in what manner. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.4 – Limitation period – Application, if barred by limitation – Benefit of the additional 30 days under proviso to s.34(3), which expired during vacation, if can be given when the petition is filed immediately after reopening in exercise of power u/s.4 of the Act, 1963 – Appellants received the arbitral award on 14.02.2022 – 3-months limitation period for filing the application u/s.34(3), after considering the extension of limitation by operation of this Court’s COVID-19 pandemic order, expired on 29.05.2022, on which date the court was functioning – Further 30-day condonable period expired on 28.06.2022, which fell during the High Court’s summer vacation between 04.06.2022 and 03.07.2022 – Appellants filed application u/s.34 on the first date of court’s reopening on 04.07.2022, alongwith with the condonation application – Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application u/s.34 and the Division Bench dismissed the application u/s.37 as barred by limitation: * Author 730 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Held: (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) Application u/s.34 is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days, which conclusively and absolutely expired on 28.06.2022 – There is no wholesale exclusion of ss.4 to 24 of the 1963 Act when calculating the limitation period u/s.34(3) – s.4 applies to s.34(3) of the 1996 Act only to the extent when the 3-month period expires on a court holiday – It does not aid the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday – Furthermore, in view of the applicability of s.4 of the 1963 Act to s.34 proceedings, s.10 of the GCA does not apply and will not benefit the applicant when the 30-day condonable period expires on a court holiday – Thus, the judgment and order passed by the High Court upheld – General Clauses Act. [Paras 1.1, 37, 38] Held: (per Pankaj Mithal, J.) (Supplementing) Period of limitation prescribed for instituting a suit or filing an appeal or making an application has to be distinguished from a condonable period which cannot be made part of the period of limitation prescribed – As the period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition u/s.34 expired on a working day and not on a day on which the court was closed, the appellants not entitled to file it on the re-opening of the court after the summer vacation and as such the petition so filed was patently barred by limitation – As the period of limitation prescribed for filing a petition u/s.34 expired on 29.05.2022 whereas the petition was preferred on 04.07.2022 much beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the condonable period of 30 days stipulated under the proviso to s.34(3), the petition u/s.34 was beyond time and the delay could not have been condoned – No error or illegality on part of the High Court in dismissing the petition. [Paras 15-17] Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.3, 4-24, 29(2) – Schedule to the Limitation Act – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.43(1) – Limitations – Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act: Held: (per Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.) s.29(2) of the 1963 Act stipulates that where any special or local law prescribes a period of limitation that is different from the Schedule, s.3 of the 1963 Act shall apply as if such period is the one prescribed in the Schedule – ss.4 to 24 shall apply insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law – Thus, s.29(2) imports the provisions of the Limitation Act to special and local laws that prescribe a different period of limitation, [2025] 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.