Comments on: Another Supreme Court Decision on Limitation under the Arbitration Act http://www.criticaltwenties.in/corporatelawandbusiness/another-supreme-court-on-limitation-under-the-arbitration-act Powered by Webshore Fri, 03 Apr 2015 11:07:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Charles Sarkodie http://www.criticaltwenties.in/corporatelawandbusiness/another-supreme-court-on-limitation-under-the-arbitration-act#comment-9874 Charles Sarkodie Tue, 29 Nov 2011 11:28:18 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2573#comment-9874 How would the above ruling be applicable under the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 ? How would the above ruling be applicable under the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 ?

]]> By: SAURENDRA RAUTRAY http://www.criticaltwenties.in/corporatelawandbusiness/another-supreme-court-on-limitation-under-the-arbitration-act#comment-8000 SAURENDRA RAUTRAY Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:31:12 +0000 http://www.criticaltwenties.in/?p=2573#comment-8000 The above mentioned judgmenet passed by the Supreme court is correct but still I find that the an act and omission by an Arbitrator can not prejudice the rights of the claimant here in. Supreme court has discussed that the respodent there in cannot suffer as no signed copy of the award was delivered to the respondent. Where I beleieve in a local say which i am translating in english that " A person who sleeps cannot claim the right". I feel the court could have asked the Respondent as to why they slept over the matter since last 7 months, why did they apply for a signed copy in jan 2004 as the same could have been done much earlier. Here the Respondent being aware of the passing of the award should have acted dilligently and for this reason i feel Respondent should have penalised. Since section 31 (5) is of great importance and should not be taken lightly as the compliance of the said section would result in closing of proceeding before the Arbitrator and the starting of court proceeding if aggreived party wants to challange the award. Since there is a precribed time period for challange which is 3 months and 30 days the limitation shall start from the day of such delivery.the reason a signed copy is required as a xerox copy cannot be accepted by the court while filing section 34. The supreme court has rightly pointed out that section 31 (5) has to be read with section 34(3) and has put great importance of delivery of a signed copy as the right to file section 34 shall arise from the date of delivery but a fine line could have been drawn in this case as a party being aware of the award being passed and admitedly receiving a xerox copy of the award but the Respondent/Dhrs should not have been let off by the Supreme court who clearly took undue advantage of section 31 (5) in this case. The Respondent/ DHrs got away easily where as they should have been penalised by dismissing the SLP. The above mentioned judgmenet passed by the Supreme court is correct but still I find that the an act and omission by an Arbitrator can not prejudice the rights of the claimant here in. Supreme court has discussed that the respodent there in cannot suffer as no signed copy of the award was delivered to the respondent. Where I beleieve in a local say which i am translating in english that ” A person who sleeps cannot claim the right”.

I feel the court could have asked the Respondent as to why they slept over the matter since last 7 months, why did they apply for a signed copy in jan 2004 as the same could have been done much earlier. Here the Respondent being aware of the passing of the award should have acted dilligently and for this reason i feel Respondent should have penalised. Since section 31 (5) is of great importance and should not be taken lightly as the compliance of the said section would result in closing of proceeding before the Arbitrator and the starting of court proceeding if aggreived party wants to challange the award.

Since there is a precribed time period for challange which is 3 months and 30 days the limitation shall start from the day of such delivery.the reason a signed copy is required as a xerox copy cannot be accepted by the court while filing section 34.
The supreme court has rightly pointed out that section 31 (5) has to be read with section 34(3) and has put great importance of delivery of a signed copy as the right to file section 34 shall arise from the date of delivery but a fine line could have been drawn in this case as a party being aware of the award being passed and admitedly receiving a xerox copy of the award but the Respondent/Dhrs should not have been let off by the Supreme court who clearly took undue advantage of section 31 (5) in this case. The Respondent/ DHrs got away easily where as they should have been penalised by dismissing the SLP.

]]>