Section 14 exclusion cannot extend Section 34(3)’s outer thirty-day limitation period.

Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (“DVVNL”) challenged, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“A&C Act”), an arbitral award dated 21 May 2024, whereby the Sole Arbitrator allowed M/s Creative Entrepreneurs LLP’s claim and directed DVVNL to pay ₹2,42,63,079 with interest at 18% per annum, along with costs of ₹4,90,082 carrying interest at 10% per annum.

The dispute arose from a contract dated 4 February 2016 for construction of an electrical sub-station and associated transmission lines at Ganjdundwara, Uttar Pradesh.

Following unsuccessful conciliation proceedings before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council under Section 18 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act”), the dispute was referred to arbitration before the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, which passed the award in Delhi.

DVVNL initially filed a Section 34 petition before the Commercial Court, Agra, in August 2024, relying, inter alia, on the contractual forum-selection clause.

The Agra Court dismissed the petition and connected applications on 8 January 2026 for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that jurisdiction lay with the courts at Delhi because the respondent-supplier was located in Delhi and the arbitral proceedings and award were conducted and rendered there.

DVVNL thereafter filed the present petition before the Delhi High Court on 10 June 2026 and sought exclusion of the period spent before the Agra Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as well as condonation of the subsequent delay under Section 5 of that Act.

Whether the period spent by DVVNL bona fide prosecuting its Section 34 petition before the Commercial Court, Agra, could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

Whether the delay between 28 January 2026, when DVVNL was advised to approach the Delhi courts, and 10 June 2026, when the present petition was filed, could be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

Whether the Section 34 petition was maintainable in view of the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act?

Section 34(3) of the A&C Act requires an application to set aside an arbitral award to be filed within three months from receipt of the award, with a further condonable period of only thirty days upon sufficient cause, “but not thereafter.”

Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, this express outer limit excludes the application of Section 5 to extend the limitation period beyond three months plus thirty days, as held in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Techno Engineers, (2010) 12 SCC 210.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act permits exclusion of time spent bona fide and with due diligence prosecuting a proceeding before a court unable to entertain it for want of jurisdiction or a similar cause.

The conditions identified in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, (2008) 7 SCC 169, include prosecution of the prior and subsequent proceedings by the same party, due diligence and good faith, failure of the prior proceeding for want of jurisdiction or a similar cause, identity of the matter in issue, and prosecution of both proceedings before a court.

The Court also accepted the statutory jurisdictional framework under Sections 18(4) and 24 of the MSMED Act, under which the statutory mechanism overrides inconsistent contractual arrangements.

The Court was prepared to give DVVNL the benefit of Section 14 and exclude the entire period during which its petition remained pending before the Agra Court, since the initial choice of forum was based on the contractual forum-selection clause and did not, by itself, demonstrate lack of due diligence.

However, DVVNL admittedly received advice to approach the Delhi courts on 28 January 2026, whereas it filed the present petition only on 10 June 2026.

The explanation that time was required for drafting the petition and retrieving documents from the Agra Court did not overcome the fact that this intervening period exceeded the additional thirty days permissible under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.

Consequently, even assuming full satisfaction of the requirements of Section 14 and treating the explanation as sufficient cause, the delay exceeded the statutory outer limit.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act therefore could not assist DVVNL, and the Court found it unnecessary to examine the merits of the challenge to the award.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not extend that statutory outer limit.

The Section 34 petition was therefore barred by limitation, no case for condonation of delay was made out, and the petition along with all connected applications was dismissed.