The Delhi High Court has reiterated that a delay beyond 120 days in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be condoned, emphasising the strict statutory bar on extending limitation beyond the prescribed period.
Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the Union of India’s petition challenging an arbitral award dated December 22, 2024 and corrected award dated December 31, 2024, noting that the petition was filed beyond the maximum permissible 120-day period from the date of receipt of the signed award.
The Union of India filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking condonation of a 140 days’ delay in challenging an arbitral award. The delay was attributed to a mistaken filing of the Section 34 petition on March 26, 2025, before the Principal District Judge, Patna, under the bona fide belief that it had territorial jurisdiction, based on a communication from the office of the Additional Solicitor General at Patna High Court.
The Patna Court dismissed the petition on June 17, 2025, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner applied for the certified copy of the judgment on July 5, 2025, and obtained it on July 8, 2025, following which, the present petition before the Delhi High Court was filed on August 23, 2025.
The petitioner argued that the delay was unintentional and sought exclusion of the period spent before the Patna Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
However, the Court held that even after excluding the period of 4 days during which petitioner obtained certified copy, along with the period during which the petition was pending before the Patna Court (26 March to 17 June 2025), the filing before the Delhi High Court was still beyond the outer limit of 120 days prescribed under Section 34(3), and hence barred by limitation.
Referring to Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 455, and State of West Bengal Represented & Ors. v. Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd, (2024) 7 SCC 257, the Court reaffirmed that the expression “but not thereafter” in Section 34(3) leaves no scope for judicial discretion to extend the limitation period beyond 120 days.
The Court further rejected the petitioner’s argument based on My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 6 SCC 481, clarifying that the said judgment applies only when the limitation expires during court vacations and the petition is filed on the next working day when the Court re-opens, which was not the case here.
Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay and the Section 34 petition were dismissed as time-barred.
Appearances
For the Petitioner- Mr. Piyush Hans and Mr. Paras Varshney, Advocates.
For the Respondent- Dr. Amit George, Ms. Manmeet Kaur Sareen, Mr. Dushyant K. Kaul and Mr. Adishwar Suri, Advocates.
