P. RADHA BAI AND ORS. versus P. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 26-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
P. RADHA BAI AND ORS.
v.
 P. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7710-7713 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Limitation Act, 1963– s.17– Application of– If excluded while
determining the limitation period u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act – Disputes
between the appellants and respondents over division of properties
left behind by their predecessor-in-interest – Arbitration – Arbitral
award – Thereafter, the appellants, allegedly in bad faith, entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the respondents
agreeing to give certain additional properties to respondent no.1 –
MoU contemplated for execution of Gift Deeds and Release Deeds
by appellants in favour of respondent no.1 – However, the appellants
delayed the execution of the Deeds and in the meanwhile, the three-
month period and the extended period of 30 days for challenging
the Award u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act expired – Respondents filed
application u/s.34(3) of the 1996 Act  for setting aside the Award
alongwith application seeking condonation of delay caused on
account of alleged fraud played on them – Application for
condonation of delay dismissed– In revision petitions filed by the
respondents, High Court remanded the matter to the trial court
concerning the applicability of s.17, Limitation Act in an application
u/s.34 of the 1996 Act – Held: Once the party has received the
Award, the limitation period u/s.34(3), 1996 Act commences – s.17
of the Limitation Act would not come to the rescue of such objecting
party – In the present case, the respondents had a right to challenge
the Award u/s. 34 the moment they received it – Respondents received
the Award on 21.02.2010 – Once the respondents received the Award,
the time u/s.34(3) commenced – Merely because the appellants had
committed some fraud, it would not affect the respondents right to
challenge the Award if the facts entitling the filing of s.34 Application
was within their knowledge – It was incumbent on the respondents
to have instituted an application u/s.34 challenging an award –
Judgment of the High Court set aside – Order condoning the delay
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 143
  143
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
in filing the objections set aside – Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 – ss.29, 33, 34(3) and 36.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.29 – Purport of –
Discussed.
Words & Phrases – “the period of limitation shall not begin
to run”, “may not be made”, “express exclusion”  in context of
s.17, Limitation Act and ss.34(3) and 29(2) of the 1996 Act –
Meaning of – Limitation Act, 1963 – s.17 – Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34(3) & 29(2).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 29(2), Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 is divided into 2 limbs. This is evident from the conjunctive
“and” in the said provision. The first part stipulates that the
limitation period prescribed by the special law or local law will
prevail over the limitation period prescribed in the Schedule to
the Limitation Act. In this case, the Arbitration Act is a “special
law” which prescribes a specific period of limitation in Section
34(3) for filing objections to an arbitral award passed under the
1996 Act and consequently the provisions of 1996 Act would apply.
There is no provision under the Limitation Act, 1963 dealing
with challenging an Award passed under the Arbitration Act. The
second part mandates that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act
will apply for determining the period of limitation “only in so far
as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded
by such special or local law.” Thus the extent of the application
of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act will apply for determining
the limitation period under the Arbitration Act only if they are
not expressly excluded by Arbitration Act. [Paras 20, 21 and 22]
[157-A-D]
1.2 Section 17, Limitation Act, 1963 does not extend or
break the limitation period. It only postpones or defers the
commencement of the limitation period. This is evident from the
phrase “the period of limitation shall not begin to run”.
[Para 32] [160-G]
1.3 Characteristics of Section 34(3) are:
(a)  Section 34 is the only remedy for challenging an award passed
under Part I of the Arbitration Act. Section 34(3) is a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
limitation provision, which is inbuilt into the remedy
provision. One does not have to look at the Limitation Act
or any other provision for iden

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