Courts may impose a three-month deadline for disposing of a pending Section 34 challenge.

The petitioner was the beneficiary of an arbitral award and the respondent had challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The District Court stayed execution of the award subject to the respondent depositing 25% of the award amount under Section 36; the respondent deposited ₹7,74,48,680, together with accrued interest.

The petitioner challenged the stay order but withdrew that writ petition after the Section 34 application was reserved for judgment.

Following a change in the Presiding Officer, the matter was not decided, was reheard, and was later transferred to the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikkodi.

The petitioner then sought an order directing disposal of the Section 34 application within three months and permission to withdraw the deposited amount.

1. Whether the High Court should direct the District Court to dispose of the pending Section 34 application within a specified period.

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent pursuant to the Section 36 order.

Section 34(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires an application under Section 34 to be disposed of expeditiously and, in any event, within one year from the date on which notice under Section 34(5) is served on the other party.

The respondent’s deposit had been made pursuant to the District Court’s order granting a stay under Section 36 of the Act.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution; the Court directed expeditious disposal but left the request to withdraw the deposit for determination by the District Court in accordance with law.

The Section 34 proceeding had remained pending since 2024, despite the matter having once been reserved for judgment, and was subsequently prolonged following a change of Presiding Officer and transfer to the Chikkodi Court.

Having regard to the statutory direction in Section 34(6) for expeditious disposal, the Court found it appropriate to impose an outer time limit of three months.

It did not decide whether the petitioner was entitled to withdraw the deposit; instead, it directed the petitioner to seek that relief before the District Court, which must consider it in accordance with law.

The petitioner was left at liberty to apply to the District Court for withdrawal of the deposited amount, with that request to be considered in accordance with law.