Madras High Court
The Union Of India vs M/S.Navdhan Enterprises
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on: 09.01.2025 Pronounced on:
.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024
1.The Union of India,
rep. By the Deputy Salt Commissioner,
Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
2.The Assistant Salt Commissioner,
Shastri Bhavan, 26, Haddows Road,
Chennai 600 006.
... Petitioners
vs.
M/s.Navdhan Enterprises,
rep. By its Partner T.V.Mani,
Plot No.6, Vembuliamman Koil Street,
Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Arbitration Original Petition filed under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside the award of the
Arbitrator dated 09.08.2023 passed in A.F. No.1 of 2020.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Janarthanam
**********
ORDER
The above matter has been listed under the caption ‘maintainability’.
2. The Arbitration Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), challenging the award dated 09.08.2023. The O.P. was e-filed by the Petitioner on 05.03.2024. Noticing that the said filing is not within the prescribed time limit available under Section 34(3) of the Act, the Registry has returned the Petition, calling upon the Petitioners to state how the Petition is maintainable, since it has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has re-presented the papers, 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintels India Ltd. v. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 602, and contending that the above delay application is maintainable, and that the same has to be adjudicated only by the Court and consequently, the Application is maintainable.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.Janarthanam, would submit that the Registry cannot summarily reject the Petition on the ground of limitation and that as the O.P. has been numbered, it is only for the Court to decide the issue of limitation and whether the Original Petition has been filed in time or not. He would place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintels’ case (referred herein supra). Inviting my attention to paragraph No.11 of the said judgement, the learned counsel would contend that when an appeal under Section 27(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 Application under Section 34 of the Act to set aside an award, certainly the O.P. is maintainable and after hearing the parties alone, the Court could decide the point of limitation.
5. I have paid my anxious and careful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
6. Section 34(3) of the Act reads thus:
“(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal”
7. It is therefore clear that whenever an aggrieved party intends to challenge an award, the said provision has to be invoked within 3 months from the date of the aggrieved parties receipt of such award. Further period of 30 days is additionally allowed and can be condoned by this Court, if the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 Applicant shows sufficient cause for not filing the Application within the said period of 30 days.
8. Coming to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintels’ case (referred herein supra), where the High Court refused to condone the delay in filing an Application under Section 34 of the Act and in Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Act, the Division Bench of the High Court had held that an order refusing to condone delay in applying for setting aside of an award was not appealable under Section 37. It was under such circumstances that the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law and answered the question of law formulated by the High Court while granting certificate, holding that an appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Act is maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an Application under Section 34 of the Act, seeking to set aside an award. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024
9. I am unable to countenance the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme would come to the rescue of the Petitioner in the instant case. Here, there is no question of any condonation of delay, since admittedly, the O.P. has been preferred beyond even the period of 30 days which is allowed under Section 34(3) of the Act. It is not a case where the O.P. is sought to be filed within the extended period of 30 days beyond the period of 3 months. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chintels’ case (referred herein supra) does not in any way apply to the facts of the present case.
10. The Registry has rightly returned the O.P. citing delay/limitation in filing the Section 34 Application. It is not the case of the Petitioner that the O.P has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, i.e., 3 months, or 30 days thereafter. In such circumstances, the return of the O.P. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 on the ground limitation by the Registry is certainly justifiable. Even at the stage of maintainability, the Petitioner is not able to establish as to how Section 34 Application is filed within 120 days from the date of receipt of award by the Petitioner.
11. In view of the above and also in light of the expressed statutory provisions under Section 34(3), the objection of the Registry has to be necessarily sustained.
12. For all the above reasons, the objection of the Registry is sustained and the O.P. is rejected as time barred.
.01.2025 rkp Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 P.B.BALAJI, J., rkp Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div.) Diary No.173913 of 2024 .01.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis