P. Radha Bai and Ors. versus P. Ashok Kumar and Anr.

Introduction

A case chose 26th September, 2018 by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, P.Radha Bai and
Ors. v. P. Ashok Kumar and Anr, is a guide towards seeing how the Limitation Act, 1963
("Limitation Act") works versus the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").
The issue viable was whether Section 17 of the Limitation Act could be utilized to overlook the
postponement in documenting an application to put aside the honor under Section 34(3) of the
Arbitration Act. Under Section 17, the time of impediment starts to run from when extortion
played against the honor borrower is found or could have been found with sensible
industriousness.

Facts

The Parties went into a development understanding in 2006. Contest emerged among the
gatherings and in the wake of experiencing assertion, an honor ('Award') was delivered in 2014.
During the pendency of the intervention procedures, the Appellant recorded an application for
break measures under the watchful eye of the High Court of Calcutta which was properly
challenged by the Respondent. In 2015, the Award was assaulted under Section 34 of the Act by
the Respondent under the steady gaze of an off-base Court (District Judge, Port Blair). The
District Judge, Port Blair excused the Respondent's application under Section 34 of the Act for
need of ward thinking that when an application for between time measures has been settled on
with respect to an assertion understanding under the watchful eye of High Court of Calcutta
under a similar part; that Court will just have locale over the intervention procedures and all
ensuing application emerging out of that understanding and the arbitral procedures will be made
in that court and in no other court. From that point, in 2016, the Respondent again tested the
Award under Section 34 of the Act yet this time under the steady gaze of the court with
legitimate ward for example the High Court of Calcutta with an application for approbation of
postponement.

It is important that under Section 34 of the Act, the application for putting aside the honor on one
of the grounds referenced in sub-area (2) must be made inside a time of a quarter of a year from
the date on which the gathering making that application gets the arbitral honor. Moreover, the
stipulation of the said Section permits this period to be additionally stretched out by another time
of thirty days on 'adequate reason' being appeared by the gathering for documenting an
application "yet not from that point".

Issue

Regardless of whether segment 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act), which gives that
the time of confinement will start to run when extortion played on the honor borrower is found or
could have been found with sensible ingenuity, can fix the deferral in documenting an
application to put aside an honor under area 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(Arbitration Act).

Judgment

A plain perusing of sub-segment (3) alongside the stipulation to Section 34 of the Act, shows
that the application for putting aside the honor on the grounds referenced in sub-segment (2) of
Section 34 of the Act could be made inside a quarter of a year and the period must be reached out
for a further time of thirty days on indicating adequate reason and not from there on. The
utilization of the words "yet not from that point" in the stipulation clarifies that the expansion
can't be past thirty days. Regardless of whether the advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act
is given to the Respondent, there will in any case be a postponement of 131 days in recording the
application. That is past the severe timetables endorsed in sub-area (3) read alongside the
stipulation to Section 34 of the Act. The postponement of 131 days can't be approved. To do as
such, as the High Court did, is to break an unmistakable legal command.

Consequently, the Court put aside the reproved request of the High Court and held that
authoritative challenges would not be a substantial motivation to excuse a deferral well beyond
the legal recommended period under Section 34 of the Act. This judgment has settled the issue
on utilization of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act to an honor went under the Arbitration
Act. Attributable to conclusion of arbitral honors being the core of the Arbitration Act, this
judgment of the Supreme Court will help in guaranteeing absolution and expedient removal of
cases under the Arbitration Act