Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Monday, 10 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-07-30 allowed

State of Bihar & Ors vs Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti

Bench: 2 — R.F. Nariman

In Brief

This case addresses whether Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—which requires applicants to issue prior notice before challenging an arbitral award—is a mandatory or directory provision. The Patna High Court's Division Bench had held it mandatory, dismissing the challenge for non-compliance. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding Section 34(5) directory since no legal consequence is prescribed for breach. The Court reasoned that procedural provisions designed to expedite proceedings should be construed as directory if doing so advances justice. However, the Court directed all courts to endeavour to dispose of Section 34 applications within one year to fulfill the legislative intent of speedy arbitration dispute resolution.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Law Procedural Law Statutory Interpretation Mandatory vs Directory Provisions Arbitral Award

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login