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

The Supreme Court held that Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—requiring prior notice to the opposite party and an affidavit before filing an application to set aside an arbitral award—is directory, not mandatory. Although worded imperatively, the provision carries no prescribed legal consequence for non-compliance. The Court reasoned that procedural provisions designed to expedite proceedings (not create condition precedents) should be construed as directory. Unlike Section 80 CPC, which serves a vital public policy purpose, Section 34(5) merely aims to reduce delay. Courts should endeavour to dispose of such applications within one year of notice, but failure to issue prior notice does not render the application invalid or unmaintainable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.

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

Arbitration & Conciliation Procedural Law Statutory Interpretation Section 34 Application Mandatory vs Directory Awards and Challenges

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