In Brief
A contractor and the M.P. Housing Board entered into a construction contract with a clause referring disputes to the Additional Housing Commissioner as arbitrator. An award was passed against the contractor in November 2010. Instead of immediately objecting to the award, the contractor filed an application in September 2011 seeking appointment of a fresh arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The High Court rejected that application but granted liberty to file objections 'in accordance with law'. The contractor then sought to exclude the time spent in the failed Section 11 application from the three-month limitation period for objections under Section 34(3). The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act—which excludes time spent in bonafide proceedings in a wrong forum—does not apply because the two proceedings involved different legal issues at different stages (appointment vs. objection to award) and the contractor's conduct lacked good faith and diligence."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.