Patna High Court
The General Manager, East Central Railway, HazipurversusAshwaini Kumar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the Section 34 application was filed beyond the permissible limitation period.
Summary
The appellants, senior officials of the East Central Railway, appealed against a District Judge’s order dismissing their application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on limitation grounds. The application challenging the arbitral award was filed 159 days after the award, exceeding the statutory 90‑day period, which can be extended only up to a further 30 days. The High Court affirmed that the law permits no application after this combined 120‑day window, and therefore the appeal lacked merit. The court dismissed the appeal and any interlocutory application. The decision rests on the strict limitation provision of the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed 159 days after the award is barred by limitation
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 34
- Limitation period
- Arbitral award
- High Court
- Commercial appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL No.3 of 2023
======================================================
1. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur Bihar.
2. The Principal Chief Engineer, E C Rly, Hajipur, Vaishali.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, E C Rly, Danapur, Patna.
4. The Sr. Divisional Engineer-III, E C Rly, Danapur, Patna.
5. Sri Anil Kumar, Sr. Den - III, E C Rly, Danapur, Patna.
6. The ADEN (Line), E C Rly, Danapur, Patna.
7. The S.S.E. (Works), E C Rly, Danapur, Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ashwaini Kumar Son of Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh, Resident of Purani Bijli
Colony, Utta Station, Jahanabad, P.S- Jahanabad, District- Jahanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
8 16-04-2026 The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside
the order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the learned District Judge,
Patna in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 130 of 2022.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Court has been
pleased to dismiss the application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (as amended upto date)
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1996) on the ground that
the said application was hopelessly barred by limitation.
3. It is evident on going through the order of the
Patna High Court COMMERCIAL APP No.3 of 2023(8) dt.16-04-2026
2/2
learned Court that the application under Section 34 of the Act of
1996 was preferred with a delay of 159 days. The learned Court
is correct in taking a view that the limitation for filing an
application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 is 90 days from
the date of the award and the same can be extended at best for a
further period of 30 days. The law mandates that thereafter no
application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 can be
entertained.
4. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants has submitted before this Court that keeping in view
the well settled legal position, he would not venture into any
discussion on the subject.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent is present.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that the appeal has got no merit. It is
dismissed, accordingly.
7. The I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…