Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav 2025 INSC 1021 - Ss. 33 & 34 Arbitration Act - Limitation

Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Section 33 and 34 - Where an application under Section 33 for correction and interpretation of award is filed, irrespective of whether the arbitral tribunal upon considering such application, either makes or does not make any correction or modification or choose to render or to not render an additional award in terms of Section 33, the starting point for the period of limitation for challenging the same under Section 34 (3) would be the date of disposal of such application under Section 33 by the arbitral tribunal, as long as the application under Section 33 had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation under sub-section (1) thereto AND with notice to the other party- Neither the date of passing of the original award or date of receipt of the same by the party nor the date of receipt of the corrected award or date of receipt of the decision of the arbitrator disposing the application under Section 33 is of any significance. What is of significance, under Section 34 (3) is the date on which the application or request under Section 33 came to be disposed by the arbitral tribunal - Where a request is made under Section 33, it is immaterial for the purpose of computation of limitation under Section 34 (3) whether such request fell within the purview of the said provision or not. What is material is only that such request was made in the manner delineated under Section 33 i.e., it fulfilled the twin conditions of being made; (I) “within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award” and (II) “with notice to the other party” stipulated therein. (Para 35)

Limitation - The fundamental cannons of law of limitation demands, as a thumb rule, that any period of commencement and end of limitation should be determinable and ascertainable in an objective parameter. The law of limitation, at least insofar as the computation of the prescribed period of limitation is concerned, cannot be read in a hyper-technical or subjective manner. The same must in most cases, if not always, adorn a formulaic understanding that is comprehendible to the litigants. (Para 31)