In the case of Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) v. IBEX Integrated Business Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble High Court at Bombay delivered a judgement on an important question of law, i.e. When a party files a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996, whether the party is entitled to the exclusion of limitation granted under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, wherein the award was challenged in Writ and a decision was invited despite objections on maintainability of such a Writ.

BEL filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging an award passed by the MSEFC Council, Mumbai, 61 days after receiving the award. IBEX raised objections to the maintainability of the Writ Petition ab initio. IBEX objected to the writ petition on the ground that there already exist an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for challenging the award. The parties were heard, and the Writ Petition was dismissed on maintainability. At the time of pronouncement of the judgement the BEL’s counsel submitted that they shall avail of an appropriate remedy against the impugned award, as may be available in law. However, after 55 days of passing of the dismissal order, BEL filed a SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court dismissing the Writ. The Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the view taken by the High Court on maintainability and dismissed the SLP.

Pursuant to the dismissal of the SLP, BEL filed a Sec. 34 Petition alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the Section 34 petition, claiming exclusion of 1854 days under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The High Court, dismissed the Application for condonation of delay, thereby rejecting the sec. 34 Petition as barred by limitation as per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, observing that:
i. BEL failed to fulfil the test mandated by Section 14 of the Limitation Act;

ii.         Prosecuting a Writ Petition by BEL for challenging an arbitral award despite consistent objections on its maintainability, cannot be claimed to be a bona-fide prosecution of proceedings;

iii.       BEL failed to satisfy the Court that it exercised any due diligence in prosecuting the Writ Petition challenging the award;

iv.       The Writ proceeding cannot be said to be a proceeding suffering from defect of jurisdiction, as given under Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act. The High Court observed that it cannot be said that a Writ Court suffers from defect of Jurisdiction only because it chose not to interfere with an award on the ground that an alternate and efficacious remedy exist;

The author was the instructing Attorney, assisting Mr. Prathamesh Kamat (Arguing Counsel) and Mr. Nakul Jain (Co-Counsel) appearing for the successful Respondent (IBEX).