On September 26, 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar decided on the issue of whether section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) is applicable while determining the limitation period under section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”)?

The Supreme Court observed that section 29(2) is divided into 2 limbs. The first part stipulates that the limitation period prescribed by the special law or local law will prevail over the limitation period prescribed in the schedule to the Limitation Act. In this case, the Arbitration Act is a "special law" which prescribes a specific period of limitation in section 34(3) for filing objections to an arbitral award passed under the Arbitration Act and consequently the provisions of Arbitration Act would apply. The second part mandates that sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act will apply for determining the period of limitation "only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." Thus the extent of the application of sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act will apply for determining the limitation period under the Arbitration Act only if they are not expressly excluded by Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court held that the language of section 34(3) of Arbitration Act tantamount to an "express exclusion" of section 17 of Limitation Act. Further, the exclusion of section 17 is also necessarily implied when one looks at the scheme and object of the Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court held that once a party has received an award, the limitation period under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act commences and section 17 of the Limitation Act would not come to the rescue of the objecting party.