Case: State Of M.P.  Vs. Anshuman Shukla

of Section 5 cannot be extended where the default takes place in complying with an order under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act. 34. Further, explaining as to why Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable, the Court observed: The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be construed having regard to Section 3 thereof. For filing an application after the expiry of the period prescribed under the Limitation Act or any special statute a cause of action must arise. Compliance of an order passed by a Court of Law in terms of a statutory provision does not give rise to a cause of action. On failure to comply with an order passed by a Court of Law instant consequences are provided for under the statute. The Court can condone the default only when the statute confers such a power on the Court and not otherwise. In that view of the matter we have no other option but to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application in the instant case. [emphasis laid by this Court] It is evident on a plain reading of the judgment in that case, that the reason why Section 5 of the Limitation Act was said to be inapplicable to the Rajasthan Act, Section 13(4), was because of the nature of the specific provision in question. It was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 13(4), as the deposit of rent by the tenant cannot be said to be an application for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This case cannot be said to be relevant to the facts of the present case, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act has got application for the purpose of Section 19 of the Act of 1983, and the cause of action accrued to the appellant when the Tribunal passed the award. 35. We now direct our attention to the second case i.e. Union of India v. Popular Construction (supra)on which reliance was placed by this Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition in the case of NagarpalikaParishad, Morena (supra). The issue therein was whether Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 36. The wording of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996, reads thus: 34. (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. [emphasis laid by this Court] While examining the provision of Section 34, the Court in Popular Construction case (supra) observed as under: 8. Had the proviso to Section 34 merely provided for a period within which the Court could exercise its discretion, that would not have been sufficient to exclude Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act because mere provision of a period of limitation in howsoever peremptory or imperative language is not sufficient to displace the applicability of Section 5. [emphasis laid by this Court] While holding that Section 5 is not applicable to Section 34(3), it was held that the presence of the words but not thereafter operate as an express exclusion to Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are but not thereafter used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the Court could entertain an application to set aside the Award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase but not thereafter wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result. (Emphasis laid down by the Court) 37. Section 19 of the Act of 1983, does not contain any express rider on the power of the High Court to entertain an application for revision after the expiry of the prescribed period of three months. On the contrary, the High Court is conferred with suomoto power, to call for the record of an award at any time. It cannot, therefore, be said that the legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 19 of the Act of 1983. 38. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to delve into the question of whether the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court or not for answering the issue in the present case, as the delay in filing the revision has occurred before the High Court, and not the Arbitral Tribunal. Answer to Point No.2 39. In light of the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983. No express exclusion has been incorporated therein, and there is neither any evidence to suggest that the legislative intent was to bar the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act on Section 19 of the Act of 1983. The cases which were relied upon to dismiss the Special Leave Petition, namely Nasiruddin(supra) and Popular Construction (supra) can be distinguished both in terms of the facts as well as the law applicable, and thus, have no bearing on the facts of the present case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 came into force with effect from 01.03.1985. It was enacted to provide for the establishment of a Tribunal to arbitrate on disputes to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking (wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the State Government), is a party and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith21. The Arbitral Tribunal is constituted in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1983, for resolving all disputes and differences pertaining to works contract or arising out of or connected with execution, discharge or satisfaction of any such works contract22. Section 7 of the Act provides for reference to Tribunal. Such reference may be made irrespective of whether the agreement contains an arbitration clause or not. Section 7-A of the Act provides for the particulars on the basis whereof the reference petition is to be filed23. Section 19 of the Act confers the power of revision on the High Court. It provides that the aggrieved party may make an application for revision before the High Court within three months of the date of the award. This Section was amended in 2005, to confer the power on the High Court to condone the delay. Since this dispute pertains prior to 2005, thus, the provision of the unamended Act shall apply in the present case24. The Limitation Act, 1963 is the general legislation on the law of limitation25. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that an appeal may be admitted after the limitation period has expired, if the appellant satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause for delay26. Section 29 of the Limitation Act is the saving section. Sub-section (2) reads as follows:(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local lawSub section (2) thus, provides that Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall be applicable to any Act which prescribes a special period of limitation, unless they are expressly excluded by that special law27. This Court in the case of MukriGopalan v. CheppilatPuthanpuravil Aboobacker ((1995) 5 SCC 5 ) examined the question of whether the Limitation Act will apply to the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1965. While holding that the appellate authority under the Kerala Act acts as a Court, it was held that since the Act prescribes a period of limitation, which is different from the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, and there is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, in the above (Lease & Rent) Control Act, thus, those Sections shall be applicable to the Kerala ActWhile examining the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, it was observed:8. A mere look at the aforesaid provision shows for its applicability to the facts of a given case and for importing the machinery of the provisions containing Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act the following two requirements have to be satisfied by the authority invoking the said provision:(i) There must be a provision for period of limitation under any special or local law in connection with any suit, appeal or application(ii) The said prescription of period of limitation under such special or local law should be different from the period prescribed by the schedule to the Limitation Act28. It was further held that if the two above conditions are satisfied, then the following implications would follow:9. If the aforesaid two requirements are satisfied the consequences contemplated by Section 29(2) would automatically followThese consequences are as under:(i) In such a case Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply as if the period prescribed by the special or local law was the period prescribed by the schedule(ii) For determining any period of limitation prescribed by such special or local law for a suit, appeal or application all the provisions containing Sections 4 to 24(inclusive) would apply insofar as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded b y such special or local la w[emphasis laid by this Court]29. Further, in the case of HukumdevNarain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra ((1974)2 SCC 133) , a three judge Bench of this court, while examining whether the Limitation Act would be applicable to the provisions of Representation of People Act, observed as under:17. ....but what we have to see is whether the scheme of the special law, that is in this case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our view, even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation30. According to HukumdevNarain Yadav (supra), even if there exists no express exclusion in the special law, the court reserves the right to examine the provisions of the special law, and arrived at a conclusion as to whether the legislative intent was to exclude the operation of the Limitation Act31. Section 19 of the Act of 1983 prescribes a period of limitation of three months. This limitation period finds no mention in the schedule to the Limitation Act. Further, Section 19 does not expressly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963It is evident on a plain reading of the judgment in that case, that the reason why Section 5 of the Limitation Act was said to be inapplicable to the Rajasthan Act, Section 13(4), was because of the nature of the specific provision in question. It was held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to Section 13(4), as the deposit of rent by the tenant cannot be said to be an application for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This case cannot be said to be relevant to the facts of the present case, as Section 5 of the Limitation Act has got application for the purpose of Section 19 of the Act of 1983, and the cause of action accrued to the appellant when the Tribunal passed the award37. Section 19 of the Act of 1983, does not contain any express rider on the power of the High Court to entertain an application for revision after the expiry of the prescribed period of three months. On the contrary, the High Court is conferred with suomoto power, to call for the record of an award at any time. It cannot, therefore, be said that the legislative intent was to exclude the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Section 19 of the Act of 198338. In our opinion, it is unnecessary to delve into the question of whether the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court or not for answering the issue in the present case, as the delay in filing the revision has occurred before the High Court, and not the Arbitral Tribunal