Section 14 Limitation Act benefit cannot extend Section 34(3) Arbitration Act’s absolute 120-day outer limit.

The Petitioner challenged an order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the H.P. Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Initially, the Petitioner filed writ petitions (CMPMO Nos. 735 & 753 of 2024) under Article 227 of the Constitution on 17.12.2024

On 01.07.2025, the High Court dismissed those petitions as non-maintainable, holding that the proper remedy lay under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act")

Consequently, the Petitioner filed objections under Section 34 along with the present application for condonation of delay on 14.08.2025

The Registry reported a delay of 11 months and 5 days

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period spent pursuing the remedy under Article 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether the Court has the jurisdiction to condone delay in filing Section 34 objections beyond the "proviso" period of thirty days after the initial three-month limitation

The court applied Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which stipulates a three-month limitation period with a maximum condonable window of 30 days, provided "sufficient cause" is shown

Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt. (2008) and My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (2025) to affirm that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded by Section 34(3), the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent bona fide in a court without jurisdiction) can be extended to arbitration proceedings

Section 14 requires proof of due diligence and good faith

The Court noted that the initial order was passed on 21.08.2024. The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 on 17.12.2024; by this time, the mandatory three-month period under Section 34(3) had already expired, and 25 days of the discretionary 30-day "grace period" had also elapsed

Even if the Court granted the benefit of Section 14 for the duration of the writ proceedings, the Petitioner failed to file the Section 34 objections immediately upon the dismissal of the writ on 01.07.2025. The objections were filed 44 days later (14.08.2025)

The Court found that even after excluding the time spent in the wrong forum, the delay exceeded the remaining 5 days of the statutory 30-day condonable limit

Furthermore, the Petitioner’s application was silent on the essential ingredients of Section 14, such as "due diligence" or "good faith"

Consequently, the Section 34 objections were dismissed as time-barred. The benefit of Section 14 couldn't save the petition as the Petitioner was already in default of the primary limitation before filing the writ, and further delayed the matter by 44 days after the writ was dismissed