advocatemmmohan
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 – Sections 33 and 34(3) – Limitation for application to set aside arbitral award – Starting point of limitation where application under Section 33 is filed.
Where a request under Section 33 is made and entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, limitation under Section 34(3) for filing an application to set aside the award commences from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Tribunal and not from the date of the original award. Paras 13, 14, 18.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34(3) – Interpretation of statutory limitation provision – Court cannot add words to statute.
Section 34(3) does not distinguish between applications under Section 33 which are allowed, dismissed, maintainable or otherwise. Where the legislature has not imposed any such restriction, the Court cannot read into the provision a condition that only a maintainable or successful application under Section 33 would postpone commencement of limitation. Para 13.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 33 – Formal invocation of jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal – Effect on limitation under Section 34(3).
For the purpose of Section 34(3), the relevant consideration is whether the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 has been formally invoked and proceedings remained pending before the Tribunal. The ultimate success or failure of the application is immaterial. Paras 14, 15.
Arbitration – Limitation – Pendency of proceedings under Section 33 – Parties cannot be compelled to simultaneously pursue remedy under Section 34.
Once proceedings under Section 33 are pending, the award remains subject to the limited jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal for correction, interpretation or supplementation. Parties cannot be compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely by way of abundant caution during pendency of Section 33 proceedings. Para 14.
Arbitration – Limitation – Dismissal of application under Section 33 – Whether benefit of Section 34(3) lost – No.
The fact that an application under Section 33 is eventually dismissed or found without merit does not deprive a party of the benefit available under Section 34(3). The commencement of limitation depends upon disposal of the Section 33 proceedings and not upon their outcome. Paras 13, 15.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 33 – Formal application distinguished from correspondence seeking review.
Where a party formally invokes Section 33 and the Arbitral Tribunal entertains and adjudicates the application, limitation under Section 34(3) runs from disposal of such application. Decision in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. distinguished, as that case involved only a letter substantially seeking review and not a formal application under Section 33. Para 16.
Arbitration – Interpretation advancing object of Act – Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
An interpretation requiring parties to file proceedings under Section 34 during pendency of Section 33 proceedings would result in multiplicity of litigation and procedural uncertainty and would defeat the scheme and object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Para 17.
Arbitration – Abuse of process – Frivolous or mala fide applications under Section 33 – Consequences.
Though filing of an application under Section 33 postpones commencement of limitation under Section 34(3), courts are empowered to impose exemplary and punitive costs where such applications are found to be sham, frivolous, mala fide or filed solely for defeating limitation. Para 17.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 33 and 34(3) – Computation of limitation – Certified copy of order disposing Section 33 applications received on 15.09.2022 – Section 34 applications filed on 07.11.2022 – Held, within limitation.
Since both parties had filed applications under Section 33 which were disposed of by common order dated 04.07.2022 and the certified copy thereof was received on 15.09.2022, the applications under Section 34 filed on 07.11.2022 were within the period prescribed by Section 34(3). Paras 19, 20.
Ratio Decidendi
A formal request under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal, postpones commencement of limitation under Section 34(3) until disposal of such request. The benefit is available irrespective of whether the Section 33 application is ultimately allowed or dismissed, provided the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 33 was duly invoked. Paras 13–18.
Cases Referred
- State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. – distinguished – Para 16.
- Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav – followed – Paras 9, 18.
- Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India – relied upon – Para 18.
- USS Alliance v. State of U.P. – relied upon – Para 18.
National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.7570 of 2024, decided on 02.06.2026 (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.)
Section 34 “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.”
