In the case of My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Private Limited vs. Faridabad Implements Private Limited Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2025, the Supreme Court (“Court”) has held that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) are not entirely excluded under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”), i.e., the benefit under Section 4 of the Limitation Act is only for the prescribed period and not for the condoned delay period.
Facts of the case
Submissions
What was held by the Court
The Court concluded that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the Act and only benefits a party when the prescribed period under Section 34(3) expires on a court holiday and not otherwise. Section 10 of the GCA does not apply on the basis of the explicit provision in the GCA stating that it will not apply where the Limitation Act is applicable.
To assess the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, the Court referred to the interpretation provided in the Assam Urban Water Supply case. It was held that the "prescribed period" under Section 4 is limited to the initial three-month duration and does not include the additional 30 days in Section 34(3) of the Act. This interpretation was reaffirmed in the Bhimashankar Sahahari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita vs. Walchandnagar Industries Limited [(2023) 8 SCC 453]. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies because it is neither explicitly nor implicitly excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act.
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the Section 34 petition. It also held that the petition was time-barred and the benefit under Section 4 of the Limitation Act was available to the Appellant only for the prescribed period of three months and not for the condonable delay period.
In parting the Court expressed that the statutes ought not to provide different period of limitation for instituting suits, preferring appeals and making an application - rather all statutes should stick to a uniform period of limitation. Further, the courts should also be empowered to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown for not filing it within the time prescribed rather than restricting the condonable period to a fix period of 15 days or 30 days as provided in some of the statutes. It observed that this deviation and restriction creates confusion and ordinarily even a lawyer at times fails to notice that a different period of limitation has been prescribed for preferring an appeal under a particular statute. There may also be a situation where a litigant for various reasons is unable to take the legal remedy within the period of limitation prescribed. The legislature ought not to confine condoning the delay only for a prescribed period and not beyond it. Law makers to keep this in mind while enacting new Acts and ensure that uniform system is applied in all enactments, be it present or future.
Please find a copy of the judgement, here.
This update has been contributed by Ranjit Shetty (Senior Partner) and Risha Alva (Senior Associate).
Argus Knowledge Centre is now on WhatsApp! Send us a message on +91 8433523504 to receive updates from our Knowledge Centre.
7A, 7th Floor, Tower C, Max House,
Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 3
New Delhi – 110020
The rules of the Bar Council of India do not permit advocates to solicit work or advertise in any manner. This website has been created only for informational purposes and is not intended to constitute solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work in any manner. By clicking on 'Agree' below, you acknowledge and confirm the following:
a) there has been no solicitation, invitation, advertisement or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
b) you are desirous of obtaining further information about us on your own accord and for your use;
c) no information or material provided on this website is to be construed as a legal opinion and use of this website will not create any lawyer-client relationship;
d) while reasonable care has been taken in ensuring the accuracy of the contents of the website, Argus Partners shall not be responsible for the results of any actions taken on the basis of information provided in this website or for any error or omission in the website; and
e) in cases where the user has any legal issues, the user must seek independent legal advice.