{"id":333556,"date":"2024-10-22T09:00:28","date_gmt":"2024-10-22T03:30:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=333556"},"modified":"2024-10-21T18:14:36","modified_gmt":"2024-10-21T12:44:36","slug":"challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/","title":{"rendered":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Introduction<\/h4>\n

The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India<\/span> v. Varindera Constructions Ltd<\/span>.1<\/sup><\/a>, of not condoning the delay under the Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> (Limitation Act) for Section 373<\/sup><\/a> appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a> (the Act) needs a reconsideration. The Supreme Court took note of Section 43<\/a> of the Act<\/a>4<\/sup><\/a> which provides for direct application of the Limitation Act to arbitrations. This article delves deep into the provisions of Limitation Act and its interplay with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act5<\/sup><\/a>. Further, it tries to show how the interplay between the statutes cannot be applied to appeals filed under Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>, in a way providing reasons as to why the view taken in Varindera<\/span>7<\/sup><\/a> needs a reconsideration.<\/p>\n

The interplay<\/h4>\n

The law that stands today is very strict and has stood too many tests by the Supreme Court. Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>8<\/sup><\/a> accords for 90 days to be the time-limit to file an application under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. However, the proviso to Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> gives a further period of 30 days which can be condoned by the Section 34 court if there is a sufficient cause shown. This amounts to a total of 120 days for anyone to file an application under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. This has been strictly interpreted by the Supreme Court wherein the Section 34 courts are not allowed to condone any delay beyond 120 days.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The reason to have a strict interpretation is the language adopted in Section 34. The word used in proviso to Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> is “but not thereafter”.10<\/sup><\/a> This shows that the maximum period for court to condone the delay under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>11<\/sup><\/a>, is only 30 days and not thereafter. The power for further condonation is taken away by the usage of words “but not thereafter”.<\/p>\n

This strict interpretation should also be looked into in yet another angle. Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> provides for a time period of 90 days. It further enables the court to condone the delay a period of 30 days if sufficient cause is shown. It is pertinent to note that this is the same power as that of any court under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>. This power to condone a period beyond 90 days to 120 days is discretionary in nature. The purpose of Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>, is to condone a stipulated period to do substantial justice. The very purpose of condoning the delay is given with a further prescribed period of 30 days under Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. This impliedly serves the purpose of Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>, the only difference being that there is a set period under Section 34(3)<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and there is no specific period under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>. The very fact that a further condonable period is provided in the provision means that there is an implied exclusion of Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> beyond the stipulated period.<\/p>\n

This implied exclusion should be looked into keeping in mind Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>12<\/sup><\/a>, wherein application of Sections 4<\/a> to 24<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>13<\/sup><\/a> is excluded insofar as it is expressly excluded by the special law. The very usage of the word “not thereafter” under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a> expressly excludes the application of Limitation Act. The very fact there is a further condonable period beyond the prescribed period also shows that there is an exclusion of application of Limitation Act.<\/p>\n

It is pertinent to note the language employed in Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>. The provision provides for exclusion of Sections 4<\/a> to 24<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> only insofar as there is a period prescribed by the special law which is different from the period prescribed in the Schedule of the Limitation Act. In other words, for application of Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>, having a prescribed period by the special law is a sine qua non. This can be inferred from the provision as it says that this exclusion can be where a special law or local law prescribes for a time-frame.<\/p>\n

Why Varindera<\/span> needs a reconsideration<\/h4>\n

The current position of law warrants for an intervention and reconsideration of Varindera<\/span>14<\/sup><\/a>.15<\/sup><\/a> The Supreme Court in Varindera<\/span>16<\/sup><\/a> upholding the view taken by the High Court dismissed the special leave petition on the ground that there was a delay in filing Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. It accorded for intention of the Act and held that the High Court cannot condone a delay beyond 120 days. The reasoning adopted reflects that the Supreme Court puts Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> on the same footing as that of Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a> in terms of condonation of delay. The Supreme Court held that since Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> which is an appellate proceeding in continuation of the original proceeding has to go through the same drill as that of Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a> has a strict timeline of 120 days.<\/p>\n

This reasoning adopted is very narrow and warrants reconsideration for various reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court has not accorded for the basic difference between Sections 34<\/a> and 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The notable difference is that there is no prescribed time period stipulated under Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> unlike Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. Therefore, application of provisions of the Limitation Act for Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> cannot be same as that of Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. This is in light of the precondition required for Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> to apply. In other words, the preconditions of Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> are not being fulfilled. Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> does not prescribe a special period other than the Schedule in the Limitation Act. Since there is no deviation from the Schedule of the Limitation Act by prescribing a time period, there cannot be an express exclusion of Sections 4<\/a> to 24<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> as enumerated under Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>. This is because Section 29(2)<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a>, only applies to such provisions of special law where there is a different time- frame prescribed.<\/p>\n

In Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> there is no specified period beyond which the courts are obligated to not condone delay which is again a huge deviation from Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. This can be said by reading Sections 37<\/a>17<\/sup><\/a> and 43<\/a>18<\/sup><\/a> of the Act<\/a> harmoniously. A bare reading of Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, shows that the appeal lies with the Court authorised by law who hears appeals from original decrees. Section 43<\/a> of the Act<\/a> stipulates that Limitation Act will apply and further stipulates under Section 43(3) that the court have the power to extend the time-limit. This reflects that the Limitation Act applies to all provisions of the Act unless there is express exclusion as stipulated under Section 29(2). This now means that Section 43<\/a> of the Act<\/a> will take effect. The whole of Limitation Act including Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> will apply. The discretionary powers of the courts under Section 5<\/a>, Limitation Act<\/a> will take effect. The High Court having sufficient cause being shown can condone any delay. This is also reflected under Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, wherein the appeal lies under the Court authorised by law who hears appeals from original decrees.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court insofar as that the test should be similar as appellate proceeding is a continuation of the original proceeding is flawed. This can be said as the language adopted in Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a> is different as that of Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The principle of applying the same test to appellate proceedings can only be when the intent of appellate proceedings and the original proceedings are same in nature. In the statute there is a clear distinction w.r.t. intent of Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The legislators clearly intended to have a strict approach under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a> unlike Section 37<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. The legislators intended to provide High Court wider powers under Section 37 unlike the District Courts under Section 34<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. This can be seen as there is no whisper of any time period restricting the scope of inter-reference of the High Court.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, the view of Varindera<\/span>19<\/sup><\/a> needs a reconsideration also for the fact that it places High Court and District Court at the same footing. This cannot be the case as High Court normally have wider powers compared to District Courts in terms of condonation of delay. The High Court is a constitutional court and has a constitutional duty to interfere in the interest of justice. This interference is restricted by the view taken by Varindera<\/span>20<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h4>\n

This interplay between the Limitation Act and the Arbitration & Conciliation Act has to be carefully looked into by the Supreme Court. The view taken in Varindera<\/span>21<\/sup><\/a> hampers the very foundation and sanctity of High Courts. The Supreme Court should also keep in mind the hardships faced in terms of financial sense while taking such strict views. It is high time that courts should adopt a view which supports inter-reference in the interest of justice rather than focusing on the stagnant aims and objects of statutes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

\u20204th year student, BA LLB (Hons.), Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai. Author can be reached at: akash.hogade@mnlumumbai.edu.in<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Limitation Act, 1963<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 37<\/a>.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 43<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 37<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34(3)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Bhimashankar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita<\/span> v. Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.<\/span>, (2023) 8 SCC 453<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 34(3) proviso.<\/a><\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Limitation Act, 1963, S. 5<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> Limitation Act, 1963, S. 29(2)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Limitation Act, 1963, Ss. 4-24<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> State of Maharashtra<\/span> v. Borse Bros. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd.<\/span>, (2021) 6 SCC 460<\/a>.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 37<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S. 43<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> (2020) 2 SCC 111<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Akash Hogade\u2020<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":333559,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[40741,74326,39497,5363],"class_list":["post-333556","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996","tag-challenging-varindera","tag-limitation-act-1963","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChallenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation? | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-10-22T03:30:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/\",\"name\":\"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation? | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-10-22T03:30:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Challenging Varindera\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation? | SCC Times","description":"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?","og_description":"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-10-22T03:30:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/","name":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation? | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp","datePublished":"2024-10-22T03:30:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"The Supreme Court recently held that the view taken in Union of India v. Varindera Constructions Ltd., of not condoning the delay","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Challenging Varindera"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/22\/challenging-varindera-time-to-reform-condonation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Challenging Varindera: Time to Reform Condonation?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Challenging-Varindera.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252800,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/30\/appeal-under-section-37-of-the-arbitration-and-conciliation-act-1996-to-condone-or-not-to-condone-delay-beyond-120-days-that-was-the-question\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":0},"title":"Appeal Under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – To Condone or Not to Condone Delay Beyond 120 Days, that was the Question!","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sidharath Goyal\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "OP. ED."","block_context":{"text":"OP. ED.","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-180.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-180.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-180.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-180.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-180.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":332385,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/10\/04\/whether-the-law-of-limitation-is-applicable-to-the-claims-under-the-msmed-act-2006\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":1},"title":"Whether the Law of Limitation is Applicable to the Claims under the MSMED Act, 2006","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Aparna Ramesh Devkar","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Law of Limitation","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Law-of-Limitation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Law-of-Limitation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Law-of-Limitation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/Law-of-Limitation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":363311,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/10\/interplay-between-sections-33-34-arbitration-act-experts-corner\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":2},"title":"When Does the Clock Start Ticking? The Interplay Between Sections 33 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996","author":"Editor","date":"October 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Arush Khanna* and Gurdev Singh Tung**","rel":"","context":"In "Experts Corner"","block_context":{"text":"Experts Corner","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Sections 33 and 34 Arbitration Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Sections-33-and-34-Arbitration-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358948,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/04\/pat-hc-refers-to-larger-bench-on-limitation-act-applicability-to-arbitration-bihar-public-works-contract\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Condonation of delay under Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act governed by Limitation Act or Arbitration and Conciliation Act?\u2019: Patna HC refers matter to larger bench","author":"Editor","date":"September 4, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAs there is conflicting view upon the same by co-ordinate benches, in such circumstances this Court is of the view that the issue should be examined by a larger bench.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Limitation Act applicability to Arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Limitation-Act-applicability-to-Arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Limitation-Act-applicability-to-Arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Limitation-Act-applicability-to-Arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Limitation-Act-applicability-to-Arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":316230,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/06\/3-years-long-period-filing-application-appointing-arbitrator-supreme-court-suggests-parliament-bring-amendment-prescribing-limitation\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":4},"title":"\u20183 years is a long period for filing application for appointing arbitrator\u2019; SC suggests Parliament to bring amendment prescribing specific limitation period","author":"Apoorva","date":"March 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court, while allowing the present petition, appointed Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, to act as the sole arbitrator.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"limitation period","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/limitation-period.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/limitation-period.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/limitation-period.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/limitation-period.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":354977,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/30\/supreme-court-limitation-act-application-on-conciliation-proceedings-under-msmed-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":333556,"position":5},"title":"Limitation Act is not applicable to conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act: Supreme Court","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cTime-barred claims must not be excluded from conciliation under the MSMED Act. The statute of limitation only bars the remedy but does not extinguish the underlying right\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Conciliation under Section 18(2) of MSMED Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Conciliation-under-Section-182-of-MSMED-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Conciliation-under-Section-182-of-MSMED-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Conciliation-under-Section-182-of-MSMED-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Conciliation-under-Section-182-of-MSMED-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333556","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=333556"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/333556\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/333559"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=333556"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=333556"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=333556"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}