Time Spent Prosecuting In Wrong Court To Be Excluded While Calculating Limitation Period U/S 34 Arbitration Act: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has re-iterated that time spent prosecuting in wrong court will be excluded while calculating the limitation period under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.

The Court was considering an Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an order of the District Judge.

The single-bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed, "Ex facie, on careful perusal of the aforesaid order, it is manifest that the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 cannot be sustained due to the fact that the learned District Judge failed to consider the aspect of exclusion of time in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt., wherein the Supreme Court distinguished the scope and ambit of Section 5 vis-a-vis Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Gaurav Mahajan while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Shikhar Garg.

Facts of the Case

Before instituting the Appeal under Section 34 of the Act before the District Judge, the Appellant had filed the application/objection under Section 34 of the Act. The application/objection remained under objection with the Registry, and eventually, the Appellant was informed that the jurisdiction does not lie with the High Court but instead with the District Judge. Following this, the appeal/objection was withdrawn by the Appellant from the High Court, and thereafter, the application/objection was filed before the District Judge. The respondent/decree holder raised a preliminary objection regarding the application being barred by limitation in view of Section 34(3)1 of the Act. The same was accepted by the District Court via the impugned order.

Reasoning By Court

The Court cited Supreme Court's decision in Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. to state that the impugned order cannot be sustained due to the fact that the District Judge failed to consider the aspect of exclusion of time in accordance with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963

Reference was also made to Supreme Court 's decision in Kirpal Singh v. Government of India, wherein the proposition of law was reiterated that the relief can also be claimed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, despite an appeal/application/objection being barred by virtue of Section 34(3) of the Act.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Incite Homecare Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. RK Swamy Pvt. Ltd.

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Gaurav Mahajan

Respondent- Advocate Shikhar Garg, Advocate Ojasvi

Click here to read/ download Order