Introduction:
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has shed light on the Application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and the General Clauses Act, 1897 in proceeding challenging an Arbitral Award. This judgment addresses a crucial question that when the prescribed period for filing an Application falls within court holidays or vacations, are the benefits provided by the General Clauses Act applicable?

Background:
In this case, an Application was filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, seeking to set aside an Arbitral Award. The issue at hand was as to whether the delay in filing the Application, which exceeded the prescribed period of three months and the extendable period of 30 additional days, could be condoned. The delay in filing fell during the court's winter/Christmas vacation, raising questions about the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act and Section 10 of the General Clauses Act. The district court had declined to condone the delay in filing the Application, as it was submitted more than 120 days after the receipt of the Arbitral Award. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, the Applicant decided to challenge these rulings by filing a Civil Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court referred to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, which allows for an Application to be made within three months from the date of receiving the Arbitral Award. The proviso to this section permits a further extension of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The court also examined Section 4 of the Limitation Act, which enables the filing of a suit, appeal, or Application on the day the court reopens if the prescribed period expires during a court closure. Additionally, Section 10 of the General Clauses Act was analysed, which pertains to the computation of time when an act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be completed within a specific day or prescribed period. According to this provision, if a court or office remains closed on the designated day, the act or proceeding can be considered valid when performed on the next working day.

The Supreme Court relied on the previous decision in Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Subash Projects and Marketing Limited (2012) 2 SCC 624, which clarified that the benefit of excluding court holidays or vacations is applicable only when the Application is filed within the prescribed period of limitation, and not for the period extendable at the court's discretion. It was further noted that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act does not apply to acts or proceedings governed by the Limitation Act, as explicitly excluded by the proviso to Section 10.

Based on these interpretations, the Supreme Court concluded that the delay in filing the Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act beyond the prescribed period could not be condoned. Building on the precedent set by the Assam Urban case, the Supreme Court held that that the benefit of excluding court holidays or vacations applies only when the Application for setting aside an Arbitral Award is filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The Supreme Court emphasized that the additional thirty-day extension, granted at the court's discretion under the proviso of Section 34(3), operates separately from the prescribed period of limitation¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar