Summary: A key procedural question in Indian arbitration law concerns the trigger for the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, where a party files a Section 33 application before challenging an arbitral award. Conflicting judicial precedents had created uncertainty on whether an application that was misconceived in scope, or unsuccessful in outcome, could nonetheless shift the limitation trigger from the date of receipt of the award to the date of disposal of the Section 33 request. The Supreme Court in Geojit Financial Services v. Sandeep Gurav (2025) has resolved this conflict by holding that any proper and timely Section 33 application, regardless of outcome or scope, defers limitation to the date of its disposal.
Latest Post
More Posts
Statutory Interpretation versus Hierarchical Presumptions: Supreme Court Settles Section 29A Jurisdiction
Does mere existence of an Arbitration Agreement Sink a Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC?
Cumulative Redeemable Preference Shareholders Cannot Trigger Insolvency Proceedings: Supreme Court
IBC vs. PMLA: Supreme Court Reinforces Jurisdictional Boundaries in Kalyani Transco Case
Navigating Legal Crossroads: Interplay between IBC and NI Act
Decoding Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision on ‘Seat’ vs. ‘Venue’ in Arbitration
Simultaneous IBC Proceedings against Corporate Debtor and Corporate Guarantor: Critical Takeaways from BRS Ventures Case
Untangling legal knot: SC’s ruling on “security deposits” as financial or operational debt under IBC
Final Word on Enforceability of Unstamped Arbitration Agreements
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS