OSA(CAD)/98/2026 of Union of India Vs Obul Reddy Constructions on 16 September 2026

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.Velmurugan J.) The intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 12.06.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.1895 of 2026 in Arb.O.P.(Comm.Div) Filing No.60342 of 2026.

2. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the arbitral award was passed on 24.08.2025 and received by the appellant on 28.08.2025. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was required to be filed within three months from the date of receipt of the award. However, due to administrative exigencies, the appellant could not present the application within the prescribed period. It is further submitted that the appellant was entitled to invoke the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act and seek condonation of delay for the further period of 30 days.

3. The learned Additional Solicitor General further submitted that the further period of 30 days contemplated under the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act expired on 26.12.2025 during the Christmas vacation of this Court and therefore, the Arbitration Original Petition was presented on the reopening day i.e., on 02.01.2026, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would enure to the benefit of the appellant, as the period within which the proceedings could be instituted expired during the Court vacation. However, the learned Single Judge, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Private Limited and Another Vs. Faridabad Implements Private Limited reported in (2025) 6 SCC 481, rejected the application holding that the Arbitration Original Petition had been presented beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act.

4. The issue is no longer res integra. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings under Section 34(3) of the Act only where the prescribed three-month period expires on a Court holiday. If the said three-month period expires on a working day, the subsequent period of 30 days available under the proviso to Section 34(3) does not get extended merely because it expires during the Court vacation.

5. For better appreciation, the relevant conclusions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.40 of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : “40.1. First, Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to Section 34(3) of the ACA.

40.2. Second, Section 4 of the Limitation Act benefits a party only when the “prescribed period” i.e., the 3-month limitation period under Section 34(3) expires on a court holiday. In such a situation, the application under Section 34 will be considered as having been filed within the limitation period if it is filed on the next working day of the Court.

40.3. Third, Section 4 of the Limitation Act does not come to the aid of the party when the 3-month limitation period expires on a day when the Court was working. The 30-day condonable period expiring during the court holidays will not survive and neither Section 4, nor any other provision of the Limitation Act, will inure to the benefit of the party to enable filing of the Section 34 application immediately after reopening.

40.4. Fourth, since Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings under Section 34 of the ACA, the applicability of Section 10 of the GCA stands excluded in view of the express wording of its proviso that excludes the applicability of the provision when the Limitation Act applies.”

6. In the present case, the admitted position is that the prescribed period of three-months under Section 34(3) of the Act expired on 26.11.2025, on which date the Court was functioning. The subsequent period of 30 days expired on 26.12.2025 during the Court vacation. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the expiry of the said condonable period during the vacation does not attract Section 4 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the presentation of the Arbitration Original Petition on 02.01.2026 cannot be treated as being within the permissible period under Section 34(3) of the Act.

7. In view of the above, we find no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge warranting interference in this intra-Court appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the intra-Court appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (P.V.,J.) (G.K.M.,J.) 16-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ms

P.VELMURUGAN J. AND GK.MUTHUKUMAAR J. ms O.S.A(CAD) No.98 of 2026 and C.M.P.No.24456 of 2026 16-09-2026