Whether S.14 of limitation Act is applicable to arbitration proceeding?

The Hon'ble Apex Court has

further dealt with S.14 of the

Limitation Act Vis­a­Vis Section

34(3) of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, in Consolidated Engineering Enterprises

.Vs. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department

2009 (Supple) AIR S.C. 396

observing as under:

12. Section 14 of the Limitation

Act deals with exclusion of time

of proceeding bona fide in a

court without jurisdiction. On

analysis of the said section, it

becomes evident that the

following conditions must be

satisfied before Section 14 can

be pressed into service:

(1) Both the prior and

subsequent proceedings are

civil proceedings prosecuted by

the same party;

(2) The prior proceeding had

been prosecuted with due

diligence and in god faith;

(3) The failure of the prior

proceeding was due to defect

of jurisdiction or other cause of

like nature;

(4) The earlier proceeding and

the latter proceeding must

relate to the same matter in

issue and ;

(5) Both the proceedings are in

a court.

The policy of Section is to

afford protection to a litigant

against the bar of limitation

when he institutes a proceeding

which by reason of some

technical defect cannot be

decided on merits and is

dismissed. While considering

the provisions of Section 14 of

the Limitation Act, proper

approach will have to be

adopted and the provision will

have to be interpreted so as to

advance the cause of justice

rather than abort the

proceedings. It will be well to

bear in mind that an element of

mistake is inherent in the

invocation of Section 14. In

fact, the section is intended to

provide relief against the bar of

limitation is cases of mistaken

remedy or selection of a wrong

forum. On reading Section 14

of the Act it becomes clear that

the legislature has enacted the

said section to exempt a certain

period covered by a bona fide

litigious activity. Upon the

words used in the section, it is

not possible to sustain the

interpretation that the principle

underlying the said section,

namely, that the bar of

limitation should not affect a

person 'honestly doing his best

to get his case tried on merits

but failing because the court is

unable to give him such a trial,

would not be applicable to an

application filed under Section

34 of the Act of 1996. The

principle is clearly applicable

not only to a case in which a

litigant brings his application in

the Court, that is, a Court

having no jurisdiction to

entertain it but also where he

brings the suit or the

application in the wrong court in

consequence of bona fide

mistake or law or defect of

procedure. Having regard to

the intention of the legislature

this Court is of the firm opinion

that the equity underlying

Section 14 should be applied to

its fullest extent and time taken

diligently pursuing a remedy, in

a wrong court, should be

excluded".

 From the above cited authority of

the Hon'ble Apex Court it is clear that,

the applicability of Section 5 of the

Limitation Act to the application under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 is excluded by

virtue of Section 29(2) of the limitation

Act. It is, however, ruled /observed

that the application of Section 14 of

the Limitation Act would not be

excluded for an application under

Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, since it

pertains to exclusion of time of

proceedings, bonafide, in a Court

without jurisdiction.