MP High Court Refuses Relief To Landowners Who Challenged Arbitral Award After More Than One Year

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a party cannot seek the benefit of limitation law after approaching the wrong forum if there was already an unexplained delay in filing the case. The Court held that merely claiming incorrect legal advice is not enough to overcome the strict timelines prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Deepak Khot dismissed an appeal filed by Ashish and others against the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The appellants had challenged an arbitral award relating to land acquisition compensation but approached the High Court through a writ petition instead of filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

The arbitral award was passed on April 12, 2017. However, the landowners filed the writ petition only in May 2018, more than a year later. The writ petition was eventually withdrawn in 2023 with liberty to pursue other legal remedies. They then filed an application seeking to set aside the award and requested exclusion of the time spent before the High Court by relying on Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The High Court rejected the request, observing that Section 14 applies only when a litigant has acted with due diligence and in good faith while pursuing a remedy before the wrong forum. In the present case, the Court noted that the appellants had failed to explain why they waited for over a year before filing the writ petition itself.

The Court reiterated that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act provides a strict limitation period of three months for challenging an arbitral award, with a maximum extension of thirty days. Beyond this period, courts have no power to condone the delay.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., the Court emphasized that the phrase "but not thereafter" in Section 34(3) clearly bars any further extension of time.

Holding that the delay was far beyond the permissible limit and could not be cured by invoking Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the High Court upheld the District Court's order and dismissed the appeal.

Case: Ashish & Others v. National Highways Authority of IndiaCourt: Madhya Pradesh High CourtBench: Justice Deepak KhotDecision Date: June 16, 2026Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-JBP:41688