Section 4 of Limitation Act Applies to Section 34(3) of Arbitration Act: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Court Holiday Extensions


Chambers of Ishaan Garg

Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054

+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163


In a significant ruling, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Pankaj Mithal, clarified the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the time limitations under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The decision addressed critical questions about the extension of limitation periods when the last day falls on a court holiday.


The case, My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2025), involved the scope of filing delays in arbitration-related appeals, particularly concerning procedural holidays and discretionary extensions under the ACA.

The dispute arose between My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) and Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) over lease agreements. Following arbitration, an award dated February 4, 2022, was issued in favor of the Respondent. The Appellant received a signed copy of the arbitral award on February 14, 2022. The three-month limitation period for challenging the award under Section 34(3) of the ACA expired on May 29, 2022, which was a working day.

The Appellant, however, filed the application to set aside the arbitral award on July 4, 2022, the first working day after the Delhi High Court’s summer vacation (June 4 to July 3, 2022). Both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court dismissed the challenge as time-barred, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court.


Key Legal Issues 

1. Applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act: Section 4 allows filings on the next working day if the prescribed limitation period expires on a court holiday. The question was whether this provision applies to the condonable 30-day extension under Section 34(3) of the ACA.

2. Distinction Between “Prescribed Period” and “Condonable Period”: The Court examined whether Section 4 benefits could extend beyond the three-month prescribed period to include the 30-day condonable extension. 

3. Exclusion of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act (GCA): The Court analyzed whether Section 10 of the GCA, which also provides for extensions due to court holidays, could apply alongside the Limitation Act.


Supreme Court’s Ruling Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha authored the leading judgment, with Justice Pankaj Mithal concurring in a separate opinion. The Court made several critical findings:

1. Section 4 of the Limitation Act Applies to the Prescribed Period: The Court held that Section 4 applies to the three-month “prescribed period” under Section 34(3) of the ACA. If the three-month period expires on a court holiday, an application can be filed on the next working day. However, this relief does not extend to the additional 30-day condonable period. “Section 4 benefits a party only when the ‘prescribed period,’ i.e., the three-month limitation period, expires on a court holiday. The condonable period, being an extension at the court’s discretion, is not covered by Section 4,” Justice Narasimha observed.

2. Condonable Period Is Not Part of the Prescribed Period: The Court reiterated that the additional 30 days under the proviso to Section 34(3) is an exceptional extension and cannot be treated as part of the “prescribed period.”

3. Exclusion of Section 10 of the GCA: The Court categorically excluded Section 10 of the GCA, citing its proviso, which states that Section 10 does not apply to proceedings governed by the Limitation Act. “When Section 4 of the Limitation Act applies, the benefit of Section 10 of the General Clauses Act stands excluded,” the judgment clarified. 

4. Concurring Opinion by Justice Pankaj Mithal: Justice Mithal underscored the practical challenges posed by rigid limitation laws, emphasizing that Parliament should consider uniform limitation periods with broader condonation provisions. While agreeing with Justice Narasimha’s legal interpretation, he suggested legislative changes to address hardships faced by litigants. “Uniformity in limitation laws would avoid undue hardships caused by technical delays and ensure greater access to justice,” Justice Mithal noted.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s ruling that the Appellant’s application under Section 34 was time-barred. The condonable period expired on June 28, 2022, during the court holiday, and the Appellant failed to file the application within this timeframe.


Case Title: My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd. 

(Civil Appeal No. 336 of 2025)