STATE OF GOA versus M/S. WESTERN BUILDERS

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 05-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF GOA 
v. 
MIS. WESTERN BUILDERS 
JULY 5, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Sections 43 and 34-Limitation 
Act, 1963-Sections 14, 5 and 29(2)-Section 14, exclusion of time of 
C proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction-Application of. to 1996 
Act-Held: 1996 Act does not expressly exclude the applicability of section 14 
of 1963 Act-Section 43 of 1996 Act applies 1963 Act, as a whole but by 
virtue of section 29(2) of 1963 Act its operation is excluded to the extent of 
area which is covered by 1996 Act-Section 34 of 1996 Act lays down the 
ground for setting aside the award and prescribes limitation period and that 
D will govern-To this extent applicability of section ' of 1963 Act is excluded 
but there is no provision to exclude operation of section 14 of 1963 Act. 
Interpretation of Statutes-General principles-Explained 
Di.spute arose between the respondent-builder and the appellant-
E State. Sole arbitrator was appointed who gave an award in favour of the 
respondent. Petition was file1:l under sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 
1940. Ci.vii Judge disposed of the petition holding that the Act of 1940 is 
not applicable and present proceedings would be governed by the 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. State filed a petition under section 
34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside the award along with the application 
F under section 14 read with si~ction 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning 
the time spent in the proceedings before the Civil Judge. Application for 
condonation of delay was rejected on the ground that there is no provision 
for extension of time under the Act of 1996 and section 14 of Limitation 
Act, 1963 is not applicable and also the application under section 34 was 
G rejected .. State filed an appe21I before the High Court which was dismissed 
holding that section 14 of the Limitation Act is not maintainable in view 
of sub-section 3 of section 34 of the Act, 1996. Hence the present appeal. 
i 
:H 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
288 
STATE OF GOA v. WESTERN BUILDERS 
289 
HELD: l. The view taken by the court below excluding the A 
applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in this proceeding 
is not correct. Section 14 of the 1963 Act is applicable in the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996. Matter is remanded to the trial court to decide 
application on section 14 of the Limitation Act. [300-E-G] 
2. 1. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 do not expressly B 
exclude the applicability of section 14 of the Limitation Act. The 
prohibitory provision has to be construed strictly. It is true that the Act 
of 1996 intended to expedite the commercial issue expeditiously. The same 
is clear from the statement of objects and reasons. The statement of objects 
and reasons also nowhere indicate that Section 14 of the Limitation Act C 
shall be excluded. But on the contrary intendment of legislature is apparent 
as section 43 of the Act, 1996 applies to the Limitation Act, 1963 as a whole. 
It is only by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 
if any other period has been prescribed under the special enactment for 
moving the application or otherwise then that period of limitation will 
govern the proceedings uuder that Act, and not the provisions of the D 
Limitation Act. Under the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award on any 
of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 34, sub-section (3) 
of section 34 prescribes the period of limitation (3 months) for moving 
the application then the provisions of Limitation Act shall stand excluded 
in Act of 1996 to the extent of area which is covered by the Act of 1996. E 
To this extent the applicability of section 5 of Limitation Act will stand 
excluded but there is no provision in the Act of 1996 which excludes 
operation of section 14 of the Limitation Act. If two Acts can be read 
harmoniously without doing violation to the words used therein, then there 
is no prohibition in doing so. [299-G-H; 300-A-E] 
F 
2.2. Whenever two enactments are overlapping each other on same 
area then courts should be cautious in interpreting those provisions. It 
should not exceed the limit provided by statute. The extent of exclusion is 
however, really a question of construction of each particular statute and 
general principles applicable are subordinate to the actual words used by 
legislature. [297-D-E[ 
G 
2.3. The legislature wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.