spinner

Calcutta High Court Rules Extended Limitation During Court Vacation in Arbitration Cases, Dismisses Plea; Appeal to Supreme Court Allowed

Last Updated: 2023-05-06 14:29:57
Calcutta High Court Rules Extended Limitation During Court Vacation in Arbitration Cases, Dismisses Plea; Appeal to Supreme Court Allowed

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that if the extended thirty-day grace period for condonation of delay in filing a plea as provided under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act falls during court vacation, it would still be included in calculating the period of limitation. Justice Shekhar B Saraf, while passing the order in State of West Bengal v Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd, recognized that such a unique situation would render the extended period of thirty days redundant. The petitioners were granted leave to appeal the decision before the Supreme Court, as the case involved a question of law of general importance that needed to be decided by the top court. 

The case in question involved a plea challenging an arbitral award passed on June 30, 2022. The petitioners filed the plea on October 31, which was beyond the three-month limitation period that began on July 1. The petitioners argued that since the court was closed for vacation starting October 1, the benefit of the extended thirty-day period applied to them, making the plea filed on the day of reopening (October 31) maintainable. The respondents, however, contended that the extended period ended on October 30. 

Justice Saraf observed that the Limitation Act, 1963 should not be an obstacle per se but rather aid in effectuating the flow of justice. He found that the prescribed period of three months expired on October 1, and the application ought to have been filed on or before September 30. Thus, the extended period of thirty days began on October 1 and ended after thirty days on October 30. The petition was dismissed on the ground of maintainability, but the judgment was stayed for an appeal before the Supreme Court due to the unique circumstances of the case. The petitioners were represented by various advocates, including the Advocate General and a Senior Advocate, while the respondents were represented by other advocates.

 

Click Here to: Download/View Related File

TAGS: Calcutta High Court Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34(3) limitation period court vacation maintainability Supreme Court arbitral award petition prescribed period extended period legal remedies justice Advocate General Senior Advocate respondents advocates.


Latest Posts

Karnataka High Court Upholds BDA Land Acquisition, Dismisses Petition Filed 53 Years Later

Karnataka High Court Upholds B...

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...