- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Delhi Jal Board v. Vijay Kumar Goel & Anr
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter concerns objections to an arbitral award dated 10.03.2005. The award was received by the petitioner on 14.03.2005. Objections to the award were filed on 02.07.2005 but were returned and then refiled only on 13.10.2005. No application for condonation of delay in refiling was filed.
The petitioner sought to challenge the arbitral award on (among other things) the interpretation of escalation clause "10CC" in the underlying agreement, but the initial framed objections did not specifically plead that interpretation issue. The court considered whether such an objection could now be added or entertained given the time limits in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner can be permitted to file or incorporate additional objections challenging the arbitral award on the ground of interpretation of escalation clause 10CC after the period specified in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has elapsed.
- Whether the limitation period under sub-section (3) of Section 34, including its proviso ("but not thereafter"), permits any extension (for example by application of provisions of the Limitation Act) so as to entertain objections filed after the statutory period.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The objections as originally framed did not specifically incorporate a plea regarding the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC, but counsel argues that the grounds taken (notably that the Award is contrary to the terms of the Agreement) should be treated as including that interpretation plea.
- Counsel requested permission to incorporate the interpretation plea by filing additional objections.
- It was contended (implicitly) that the court should consider the interpretation plea despite the original objections not specifying it.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing party's arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati v. Subhash Project and Marketing Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 Gauhati 112 | That no application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be entertained beyond the period of three months and the additional thirty days provided by the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 34, because the proviso ends with the words "but not thereafter", and that Section 4 of the Limitation Act is excluded in this context. | The court relied on this authority to support the position that the petitioner could not be permitted to file additional objections after the statutory period (three months plus thirty days) had expired. |
| Union of India v. Population Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 | That Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of the expression "but not thereafter" used in sub-section (3) of Section 34. | The court referred to this Apex Court authority to confirm that statutory time bars under Section 34(3) cannot be extended by relying on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, thereby supporting the conclusion that late objections could not be entertained. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by noting that no application for condonation of delay in refiling was filed. It observed that, even assuming condonation, the objections could not be entertained for reasons already set out in an earlier Order dated 22.10.2005.
The court analysed the substance of the petitioner's objections and found they did not specifically plead the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC. Most grounds raised amounted to a request for re-appreciation of evidence, which the court stated cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The court held that if the petitioner intended to impugn the Award on the specific issue of interpretation of clause 10CC, that plea ought to have been taken expressly in the objections.
The petitioner sought to add the interpretation plea by way of additional objections. The court held that such an amendment was not permissible because it would now be barred by time under sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The opinion set out the relevant statutory provision and applied it to the chronological facts:
- The Award is dated 10.03.2005 and was received on 14.03.2005.
- The three-month limitation under Section 34(3) therefore expired on 13.06.2005.
- Objections were filed on 02.07.2005 (the re-opening day) but were returned and refiled only on 13.10.2005.
- Even if the re-opening day (02.07.2005) were treated as the effective date, the additional thirty days allowed by the proviso would have expired on 01.08.2005.
The court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Assam Urban Water Supply (supra) and the Apex Court decision in Union of India v. Population Construction Co. (supra) to reinforce that the "but not thereafter" language in the proviso to Section 34(3) excludes reliance on provisions such as Section 5 of the Limitation Act for extension. Consequently, the court concluded the petitioner could not be permitted to file new or additional objections after the statutory period had expired.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The petition is DISMISSED.
Implications:
- The direct effect is that the petitioner's attempt to add or advance additional objections—specifically a plea on the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC—was not permitted because the time limits under sub-section (3) of Section 34 had expired.
- The court applied existing authority to confirm that the time bar in Section 34(3) (including the proviso "but not thereafter") is strict and not extendable by the Limitation Act provisions relied upon in other contexts; the opinion did not purport to lay down any novel legal principle beyond applying those precedents.
Order: Dismissed.
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. (Oral):— The application for condonation of delay in refiling has not been filed. It is, however, pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming this delay in refiling is condoned, the objections cannot be entertained for the reasons set out in the Order dated 22.10.2005
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge, rightly so, that the objections as framed do not incorporate specifically the plea regarding the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC. The grounds which have been taken are all on the issue of re-appreciation of evidence, which cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The only other ground is that the Award is contrary to the terms of the Agreement. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this plea should be considered as the plea in respect of interpretation of escalation clause 10CC. In my considered view, this is not possible. If there was a plea to be taken by the petitioner impugning the Award dated 10.03.2005 on the issue of the interpretation of escalation clause 10CC, the plea ought to have been taken specifically.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to incorporate this plea through additional objections. This is also not possible for the reason that such an objection today would be barred by time. In this behalf, reference may be made to sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as, ‘the said Act’) which reads as under:—
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.—
………………
(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:
Provided that if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. The Award is dated 10.03.2005 The date when the Award was received is stated to be 14.03.2005 Thus, the time-period of 3 months stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the said Act elapsed on 13.06.2005 The objections were filed on 02.07.2005, but were returned under objections and were refiled only on 13.10.2005
5. A judgment of Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has come to the knowledge of this Court in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati v. Subhash Project and Marketing Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2005 Gauhati 112 where it has been held that no application under Section 34 of the said Act can be entertained beyond the period of 3 months and 30 days as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 34 and proviso to the same. This is specifically so since proviso ends with the words ‘but not thereafter’. The Division Bench has further gone on to hold that there has been an exclusion of the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which enable the filing of a suit on a date subsequent to the expiry of the period prescribed in a given situation when the period expires on a holiday. In the present case, however, the petition was filed only on the re-opening day, i.e, 02.07.2005
6. Be that as it may, even if the re-opening day was the relevant date, 30 days period from the same expired on 01.08.2005 Thus, it is not permissible for the petitioner to file any additional objections at this stage.
7. It may be noticed that the judgment of Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Guwahati's case (supra) referred to judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Population Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 where it was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were not applicable to proceedings under Section 34 of the said Act in view of the expression ‘but not thereafter’ used in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the said Act.
8. The petitioner has, thus, not taken the objection which could be considered within the parameters of Section 34 of the said Act and cannot now be permitted to file new objections in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 34 read with the proviso thereto.
9. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the petition.
10. Dismissed.
Alert