Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.57 seconds)Section 20 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 37 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Kerala State Electricity Board, ... vs T.P. Kunhaliumma on 29 October, 1976
(5) Section 37(1) of the Arbitraton Act provides that all the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings in Court. There is no specific Article in the Limitation Act, 1963, laying down for filing an application u/s 20 of the Act There is, however, a residuary Art. 137 which lays down a period of limitation of three years and the time from which the period begins to run is when the right to apply accrues . At one time under Limitation Act, 1908 there was a view that the residuary Art. 137 does not apply to the proceedings under Arbitration Act. That position is no longer correct law in view of Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliuma, which lays down that the interpretation which was given to Article 181 Limitation Act, 1908 on the principle of ejusdem generis is not applicable with regard to Art. 137 of Limitation Act, 1963. It was held that Art. 137 will apply to any petition or any application filed under any Act to a civil court. As there is no specific provision under the Limitation Act for an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act it is apparent that the time for filing an application is governed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. This position is, indeed, not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Kumar though a half hearted efforts was made by Mr. Daljit Singh appearing in connected matter to urge that notwithstanding the decision in the Kerala State Elec. Bd., an application u/s 20 of the Act was not governed by the Limitation Act and there was no limitation period, as according to the counsel Section 20 is merely a procedural section. The argument is unacceptable. In view of the Supreme Court decision, it is no longer open to urge that the applications under the Arbitration Act which are filed in civil court are not governed by the Limitation Act To be fair to Mr. Kumar, who argued the main matter, we may note that he did not subscribe to this untenable proposition and conceded that an application u/s 20 would be governed by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act. But nevertheless he urged that the petition u/s 20 of the Act is within time as the time from which the period begins to run did not start earlier than 17.11.76 when the notice was given by the respondent and as the application was moved on 4.9.78 it is well within time.
Article 181 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Moti Lal vs Radhey Lal And Ors. on 2 May, 1933
This case was followed in Moti Lal v. Lal Chand, . There is thus no scope for the argument that the specific period of limitation provided u/Art. 137 Limitation Act should be allowed to be over-ridden by the vague and uncertain eventuality if the notice is given u/s 37(3) of the Act even though such a requirement is not necessary for moving an application u/s 20 of the Limitation Act.