Outer Limit Of 120 Days To File 'Section 34' Application To Set Aside Arbitral Award Not Diluted By 2015 Amendment: SC [Read Order]
"Subsequent amendment in 2015 would not change the character of the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Act."
The Supreme Court has observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act. In this case, the application for setting aside the arbitral award was preferred beyond 120 days and the same was dismissed in view of the...
The Supreme Court has observed that the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act providing outer limit of 120 days to file an application to set aside Arbitral Award remains unchanged even after 2015 amendment of the Act.
In this case, the application for setting aside the arbitral award was preferred beyond 120 days and the same was dismissed in view of the specific bar under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Courts had referred to the judgment in Union of India vs. M/s Popular Construction Company, to hold that, after a period of 90 days is over, a further period of 30 days can be condoned but beyond that no power of condonation has been given.
Assailing these orders, Advocate Devashish Bharuka, on behalf of NHAI, contended before the Apex Court [in NHAI vs. Subhash Bindlish] that the earlier regime available under Section 36, to a certain extent, has been diluted by 2015 amendment and that the relaxation of the regime under Section 36 must have some reflection on the term "but not thereafter" as appearing in Section 34 (3) of the Act.
Rejecting these contentions, the bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran observed:
In our considered view, both these provisions stand on different footings. What is provided under Section 34(3) is the outer limit within which the application can be preferred for setting aside the arbitral award. The law laid down on the point by this Court is very clear and in our view the subsequent amendment in 2015 would not change the character of the mandate under Section 34(3) of the Act.
In a judgment delivered last year, [Simplex Infrastructure Limited Vs. Union of India] the Supreme Court had reiterated that the application for setting aside the award on the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 34 could be made within three months and the period can only be extended for a further period of thirty days on showing sufficient cause and not thereafter. The use of the words "but not thereafter" in the proviso makes it clear that the extension cannot be beyond thirty days, the court had said.
Click here to Read/Download Order