UNION OF INDIA versus M/S. SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 273 · Decided: 17-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
M/S. SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED 
OCTOBER 17, 2006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Limitation Act; Section 14/Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; 
Section 34: 
A 
B 
A private company entering into a contract with Union of India for C 
construction of residential accommodation-Completion of work-Settling 
of accounts-Raising of dispute by the Company-Appointment of an 
Arbitrator-Award-Challenge to-Dismissed in limine by High Court on 
the ground that award could be challenged by filing objection in the District 
Court-Filing of objections with application for condonation of delay- D 
Dismissed by District Court-First Appeal dismissed by High Court-On 
appeal, Held: The question regarding condonation of delay seems not to 
have been examined by the Courts be/ow-Hence, the matter is remitted to 
trial Court to decide as to whether the application filed for setting aside the 
award could be considered to be within the period of limitation after E 
deducting the period elapsed in prosecuting the remedy before the High 
Court. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as to 
whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings 
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or not. 
F 
Appellant contended that it is true that Section 5 of the Limitation Act 
will have no application in the proceedings under the Arbitration and 
Conciliation Act because period of limitation has already been prescribed 
under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act but Section 14 of 
the Limitation Act has not been excluded from its ambit; that the question G 
with regard to applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was not 
examined by the High Court as well as the District Judge; that it was bona 
fide error on the part of the Union oflndia to have approached the High Court; 
that it was a misplaced impression that since the High Court has appointed 
the arbitrator, therefore, its award can be challenged before the High Court H 
273 
274 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A only; and that this Court recently in the case of State of Goa v. Western 
Builders, (2006( 6 SCC 239 has taken a view that applicability of Section 14 
of the Limitation Act is not excluded from the Act of 1996. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: In view of the decision in the State of Goa v. Western Builders, it 
is just and proper to remit this matter back to the trial Court to decide whether 
the application for setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act filed by the appellant could be considered to be within 
the period of limitation after deducting the period spent by the appellant in 
C prosecuting the remedy before the High Court. Hence, the appeal is allowed 
by remitting the matter to the District Judge. The District Judge is directed 
to examine the matter in the light of the said decision and dispose of the 
application filed by the appellant expeditiously on its merit, without prejudice 
to any observation made in this order. (276-H; 277-A-B( 
D 
State of Goa v. Western Builders, (2006( 6 sec 239, relied on. 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4516 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .8.2005 of the High Court of 
Uttaranchal at Nainital in First Appeal No. 67 of 2005. 
B. Dutta, A.S.G., Pumima Bhat Kak and Anil Katiyar for the Appellant. 
Vijay Hansaria and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A.K. MA THUR, J. Leave granted. 
The short question involved in this appeal is whether Section 14 of the 
Limitation is applicable to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 
to be referred to as the "Act") or not ? 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the 
Division Bench of High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in First Appeal No.67 
of 2005 on 17 .8.2005 whereby the Division Bench has affirmed the order dated 
6.8.2005 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No.170 
of 2005 dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of 
H the Act for setting aside the arbitral award on account of being barred by 
U .0.1. r. SHRING CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. [AK MATHUR, J.] 275 
time. 
A 
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are 
that the appellant-Union of India entered into a contract i.e. No. CEB/DDN/ 
14 of 1993-94

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