The period of limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the legislature has prescribed a special period of limitation for the purpose of filing application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Board of Trustees of Deendayal Port Trust and Anr. Vs. Optart Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – Gujarat High Court

The division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that:

(i) The words, “but not thereafter”, as stated in the proviso to Section 34(3), would amount to an exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and interpretation contrary would make the phrase “but not thereafter” otiose.
(ii) The period of limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the legislature has prescribed a special period of limitation for the purpose of filing application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Therefore, by necessary implication, the Limitation Act stands excluded.
(iii) The Court is not vested with the power to extend the limitation period beyond 30 days, as provided in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. The object of Arbitration Act, 1996 is to ensure finality to the arbitration proceedings and, therefore, in the said background, the legislature has prescribed definitive time limit for challenging the award, so that the object of speedy resolution of the disputes is not defeated.

The period of limitation cannot be extended by taking recourse to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the legislature has prescribed a special period of limitation for the purpose of filing application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Board of Trustees of Deendayal Port Trust and Anr. Vs. Optart Electronics Pvt. Ltd. – Gujarat High Court Read Post »