1 AP1009/09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1009 OF 2009 Shilpi Aggarwal ...Petitioner v/s India Infoline Ltd. ...Respondents Mr Sandesh Dadwal for Petitioner. Mr Zal Andhyarujina i/b Mr Chetan Agarwal for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH J. DATE : 8TH APRIL 2011. 2 AP1009/09 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of the National Stock Exchange. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected as it is barred by the law of limitation. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the provision in the bye-laws which provides for special period of limitation has been held to be invalid by the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in OMP No.63 of 2007 by decision dated 17th March 2009. Perusal of that judgment shows that it is an order passed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner is not in a position to explain how in a petition filed under section 34 of the Act, provision of statutory bye-laws could be set aside. It is to be seen that by virtue of provision of sub-section (4) of section 2 of the Act, provision of section 43 has been made applicable to statutory arbitration. Perusal of section 43 shows that the provisions of 3 AP1009/09 the Limitation Act have also been made applicable to statutory arbitration. Perusal of provisions of section 29 of the Limitation Act 1963 shows that where any special or local laws prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, then it is that period of limitation which applies and not the period provided by the Act and sections 4 to 24 also apply. The bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange have been held to have statutory force and it provides six months as period of limitation. In view of section 29 of the Limitation Act, it will apply as the period of limitation. I do not find any element of illegality in the bye-laws providing a different period of limitation. There is no substance in the petition. Petition is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH )