SC Dismisses Plea to Set Aside Arbitral Award u/s 34 of Arbitration Act as It Was Filed Beyond 30-Day Condonable Period

Case Details: My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality (P.) Ltd. vs. Faridabad Implements (P.) Ltd. - [2025] 170 taxmann.com 453 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the appellant entered into a lease agreement with the respondent. Certain disputes arose between parties and the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. Consequently, an arbitral award was passed in favor of the respondent which was received by the appellant on 14-2-2022.

The three-month limitation period for filing application under Section 34(3) expired on 29-05-2022, on which date the Court was functioning, but closed after five days for vacation commencing from 04-06-2022 to 03-07-2022.

Subsequently, the application under Section 34 to set aside the arbitral award was filed by the appellant immediately on the Court’s reopening, i.e. 04-07-2022. The High Court by impugned order dismissed said application as barred by limitation.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to aid of party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the Court was working.

Further, the 30-day condonable period under section 34(3) expiring during Court holidays, will not survive and neither section 4, nor any other provision of Limitation Act, will inure to benefit of party to enable filing of section 34 application immediately after reopening.

Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the application preferred by appellant under section 34 stood dismissed as it was filed beyond condonable period of 30 days, which conclusively and absolutely expired on 28-06-2022.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order passed by the High Court in FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 67/2023, dated 03.04.2024 [Para 38]; affirmed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Assam Urban Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. Subhash Projects & Marketing Limited (2012) 2 SCC 624 (para 3.2)
• Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita v. Walchandnagar Industries Limited (2023) 8 SCC 453 (para 3.4)
• Union of India v. Popular Construction (2001) 8 SCC 470 (para 5.1)
• Sridevi Datla v. Union of India (2021) 5 SCC 321 (para 5.2)
• Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Polywood Products Pvt Ltd (2021) 2 SCC 317 (para 5.3)
• State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors and Engineers Ltd (2024) 7 SCC 257 (para 6)
• Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department (2008) 7 SCC 169 (para 6.1)
• Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker, (1995) 5 SCC 5 (para 9)
• Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Excise & Taxation Officer (2020) 17 SCC 692 (para 9)
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 (para 19)
• P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445 (para 22).