Written by Manraj Grewal SharmaChandigarh | September 23, 2025 11:28 PM IST 3 min readThe case arose from a 2010-11 contract between the Union of India and M/s Ram Avtar Gupta for building a shed for 200 milch animals with automated systems at the Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes (CIRB), Hisar (Archive)The Punjab and Haryana High Court Tuesday dismissed an appeal by the Union of India, reinforcing that objections to arbitral awards cannot be entertained beyond 120 days. A division bench of Justices Harsimran Singh Sethi and Vikas Suri held that while the Limitation Act allows courts to excuse delays in some cases, its provisions cannot override the strict framework of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which prioritises speed and finality in dispute resolution.ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEOThe case arose from a 2010-11 contract between the Union of India and M/s Ram Avtar Gupta for building a shed for 200 milch animals with automated systems at the Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes (CIRB), Hisar. When dispute arose over the contract, the matter went to arbitration, and on August 3, 2019, the arbitrator ruled in favour of the contractor. This decision, called an “arbitral award”, is a binding order given by an arbitrator, much like a court decree. The government received the award on August 6, 2019, and filed objections on October 24, 2019, within the prescribed three-month limit, but before the wrong court in Karnal, which lacked jurisdiction.The Karnal court returned the petition on July 3, 2023, for filing in Gurugram. However, the government collected the petition on September 1, 2023, and re-filed it on September 11, 2023. The contractor objected, arguing the filing was time-barred, while the government sought to exclude the time spent in Karnal and condone the delay under the Limitation Act.On February 21, 2024, the Gurugram Commercial Court dismissed the petition as barred by limitation. This led to the appeal before the high court.In a 25-page judgment, the bench ruled that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act sets a three-month deadline, extendable by a maximum of 30 days on sufficient cause—“but not thereafter.” This phrase, the court said, is an express bar against applying the general provisions of the Limitation Act once the 120-day window has passed.The court agreed that time spent in good faith before a wrong court (Karnal) could be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. But even after excluding 1,344 days, the delay in re-filing was still 150 days, well beyond the 30-day grace period. “Thus, even if the benefit of Section 14 is applied, it would not help the appellants,” the court held.The judgment relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. (2001), which declared the Arbitration Act’s timeline absolute; Assam Urban Water Supply Board vs. Subash Projects (2012), which clarified that the 30-day extension is not part of the “prescribed period”; and Chintels India Ltd. vs. Bhayana Builders (2021), which reaffirmed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply.Story continues below this adThe bench also cited recent rulings where the Supreme Court, while expressing concerns over rigid timelines, upheld the 120-day cap and left it to Parliament to review. The high court noted that the government had been careless in not promptly collecting the returned petition, stressing that delays cannot be excused indefinitely without proactive effort.Dismissing the appeal without costs, the court said the ruling should serve as a reminder that arbitration deadlines are non-negotiable.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:Hisar