Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

34. Another judgment which needs to be noticed is Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department and others, (2008) 7 SCC

169. The question which was posed, in the above case, for consideration before this Court has been mentioned in paragraph 18 which is to the following effect:

“18. The question posed for consideration before the Court is whether the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to an application submitted under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 for setting aside the award made by the arbitrator………”

49. This Court in the above case held that Section 5 was attracted in appeal which was to be heard by the appellate authority. It is, further, relevant to notice that in M.P. Steel Corporation (supra), Mukri Gopalan has been referred to and has been held to be no longer good law in view of the earlier three­Judge judgments of this Court. Dealing with Mukri Gopalan’s case two­Judge Bench in M.P. Steel Corporation had held following in paragraph 29 :

“29. Quite apart from Mukri Gopalan case being out of step with at least five earlier binding judgments of this Court, it does not square also with the subsequent judgment in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. A three­Judge Bench of this Court was asked to decide whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act would apply to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After discussing the various provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Limitation Act, this Court held:…………”
32. Obviously, the ratio of Mukri Gopalan does not square with the observations of the three­Judge Bench in Consolidated Engg.

Enterprises. In the latter case, this Court has unequivocally held that Parson Tools is an authority for the proposition that the Limitation Act will not apply to quasi­judicial bodies or tribunals. To the extent that Mukri Gopalan is in conflict with the judgment in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises case, it is no longer good law.”