Full Text
FAO(OS) 565/2013
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ERSTWHILE PART OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Appellant
Through: Mr Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate.
Through
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
06.12.2013 CM No.19380/2013 (Exemption)
The exemption is allowed subjectto alljust exceptions.
This appeal hasbeen filed against the order dated 19.08.2013 whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the application under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as 'the saidAct') purely on the ground that it had been preferred beyond the time prescribed under Section 34(3) of the said Act. It is an admitted position thatthe petition under Section 34 of the said Acthad been filed well beyond thetime stipulated in Section 34(3) of the saidAct. Solely on this ground, the learned Single Judge, taking note of the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union ofIndia v. Popular Construction Co.:
ORDER
(2001) 8 see 470 has dismissed the application. We may point outthat in Popular Construction Co. (supra) the sole question for determination was whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were 2013:DHC:7365-DB applicable to an application challenging an award, under Section 34 of the said Act. The Supreme Court answered the said question in the negative and categorically held that by virtue of Section 34(3) ofthe said Act, recourse to the Court against an arbitral award cannot be made beyond the period prescribed. The learned Single Judge has followed the law declared by the Supreme Court and we do not see any error in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
DECEMBER 06, 2013 MK BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VIBHUBAKHRU, J