Tarlok Singh Sawhney v. M/s.Reliance Capital Limited
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 11 Apr 2011
- Bench
- HANDRACHUD, A A SAYED
Provisions considered
Judgment
Tarlok Singh Sawhney. Vs. M/s.Reliance Capital Limited. .... Ms.Asha Shah for the Appellant. Mr.Ramesh Dube Patil with Mr.Ashish Giri i/b. Ajay Misar & Co. for the Respondent. ..... ...Respondent. ...Appellant. CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. December 19, 2012. P.C. : The delay in filing the Appeal has been condoned by a separate order passed today in Notice of Motion 2359 of 2012. The appeal has been taken on Board by consent for hearing on the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting parties.
The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Notice of Motion for condonation of delay in filing a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground that the delay was beyond the condonable period prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 34.
The relevant facts are as follows : (i) The arbitral award was declared on 11 April 2011; (ii) The arbitral award was received by the Appellant on 21 April 2011; (iii) The VBC 2/2 appl736.12-19.12 Arbitration Petition was filed on 22 August 2011.
Under sub-section (3) of Section 34, a period of three months has been prescribed for the filing of an Arbitration Petition for setting aside an arbitral award; the period commences from the receipt of the arbitral award. Consequently, the Arbitration Petition was required to be filed by 20 July
2011. Under the proviso to sub-section (3), a Court may extend an application filed within a further period of of 30 days subject to sufficient cause being shown, "but not thereafter". The further period of thirty days also expired on 20 August 2011. 20 August 2011 was a third Saturday when the Registry of this Court was open inter alia for filing purposes. The Petition under Section 34 was filed on 22 August 2011. The Court has no power to condone the delay exceeding a further period of thirty days, beyond the initial period of three months prescribed for filing an Arbitration Petition under Section 34. The judgment of the Learned Single Judge therefore, does not suffer from any error. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( A.A. Sayed, J. )
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 34.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Apr 2011. The bench was HANDRACHUD, A A SAYED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.