Holding

The limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 begins to run from the date the arbitral tribunal disposes of a Section 33 application, irrespective of whether that application is ultimately allowed or dismissed.

Summary

The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) sought arbitration under the National Highways Act for compensation relating to land acquisition, resulting in an arbitral award on 03‑02‑2022. Both parties filed applications under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which were dismissed by the arbitrator on 04‑07‑2022; the certified order was received by NHAI on 15‑09‑2022. NHAI then filed applications under Section 34 of the same Act on 07‑11‑2022, seeking to set aside the award, and obtained condonation of delay from the trial court. The High Court held that the limitation period under Section 34(3) could not be computed from the disposal of the Section 33 applications and dismissed the applications as time‑barred. The Supreme Court clarified that the limitation under Section 34(3) starts from the date the arbitral tribunal disposes of a Section 33 application, regardless of the outcome of that application, and restored the condonation order. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

From which date does the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 commence – the date of the original award or the date of disposal of a Section 33 application?
Whether only a maintainable or successful application under Section 33 can defer the commencement of the limitation period under Section 34(3).

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 33, s. 34
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28, s. 34
National Highways Act, 1956s. 3A(1), s. 3G(1)

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the limitation u/s.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would commence from the date of the original award or from the date on which the application u/s.33 came to be disposed of. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, Act, 1956 – ss.3A(1), 3G(1) – Acquisition of land by the Central Government – The Competent Authority determined the compensation – Appellant invoked Arbitration u/s.3G(1) – The Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of ss.23(1- A), 23(2),

Subjects

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956Limitation PeriodCommencement of LimitationTime-Barred ChallengeEnhancement of CompensationExtension of LimitationLand Acquisition Proceedings

Judgment

[2026] 7 S.C.R. 11 : 2026 INSC 616

National Highway Authority of India
v.
T. Younis & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 8388 of 2026)
02 June 2026
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the limitation u/s.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 would commence from the date of the original award or
from the date on which the application u/s.33 came to be disposed of.

Headnotes†
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.33, 34 – National
Highways Act, 1956 – ss.3A(1), 3G(1) – Acquisition of land
by the Central Government – The Competent Authority
determined the compensation – Appellant invoked Arbitration
u/s.3G(1) – The Arbitrator passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by
granting the benefit of ss.23(1- A), 23(2), 28 and s.34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Both Appellant and Respondent
no.1 filed separate applications u/s.33, which were dismissed
by the Arbitrator by a common order dated 04.07.2022 – The
certified copy of the said order was received by the Appellant
on 15.09.2022 – Appellant filed applications u/s.34 of the
Act along with applications seeking condonation of delay –
Respondent no.1 raised an objection – The Principal District &
Sessions Judge condoned the delay in filing the applications
u/s.34 of the Act – Respondent no.1 challenged the same
by filing a writ petition – The High Court concluded that the
benefit of limitation u/s.34(3) of the Act was not available and,
therefore, the limitation could not be computed from the date
of disposal of such applications – Consequently, the arbitration
applications were dismissed – Correctness:
Held: The issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer
res integra – It is settled that for the purposes of computation
of limitation u/s.34(3) of the Act, it is the date of disposal of the
application u/s.33 of the Act that would earmark the starting point
of limitation for filing an application u/s.34 of the Act – A plain
12 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

reading of s.34(3), read in the light of the law laid down in Geojit,
makes it clear that once jurisdiction u/s.33 is formally invoked
and such proceedings are entertained by the Arbitral Tribunal,
the limitation for filing an application u/s.34 would commence only
from the date on which such request is disposed of by the Arbitral
Tribunal – In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute
that the certified copy of the common order dated 04.07.2022
disposing of the applications u/s.33 was received by the Appellant
on 15.09.2022 and that the applications u/s.34 were thereafter
filed on 07.11.2022 – Thus, even reckoning limitation from the
date of receipt of the order disposing of the applications u/s.33,
the applications u/s.34 of the Act were instituted within the period
contemplated u/s.34(3) of the Act – Therefore, the contention
of the Respondent that the applications u/s.34 of the Act were
barred by limitation does not merit acceptance – Accordingly, the
impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the
High Court is set aside – The orders dated 05.08.2023 passed
by the Principal District and Sessions Judge condoning the delay
in filing the applications u/s.34 of the Act, are restored – The
applications u/s.34 of the Act, to be decided on their own merits,
in accordance with the law. [Paras 18-20]

Case Law Cited
State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. [2007] 3
SCR 416 : (2007) 10 SCC 742; Geojit Financial Services Ltd. v.
Sandeep Gurav, 2025 INSC 1021 : [2025] 8 SCR 1427; Ved
Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine
SC 3181; USS Alliance v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
778 – referred to.

List of Acts
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; National Highways Act,
1956; Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

List of Keywords
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section
33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Section 3G of the
National Highways Act, 1956; Limitation Period; Commencement of
Limitation; Time-Barred Challenge; Enhancement of Compensation;
Extension of Limitation; Land Acquisition Proceedings.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 13

National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8388 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.01.2024 of the High Court
of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in WP No. 105176 of 2023

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv., Tarun Dua, Sumit Gupta, Ms. Saudamini
Sharma, Akshay Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Tanya Shrotriya, Venkita
Subramoniam T.R.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Anandakumar A Magadum, Darpan
Km, Ms. Amrita Sharma, Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Ajay Magadum,
Ms. Easha Chandhok, Prashant Upadhyay, Ms. Mahima Sadawat,
Sidharth Jain, Ms. Rashi Bansal.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated
22.01.2024, passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
Bench, (“High Court”) by which the writ petition1 preferred by the
Respondents was allowed. By the said order, the High Court, set
aside the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Bellary, whereby delay in filing the applications
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the
Act”) was condoned.
3. Facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 15.12.2009, the
Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways issued a
preliminary notification under Section 3A(1) of the National Highways
Act, 1956, (‘1956 Act’) for acquisition of land in Bellary District.
The said notification included the land belonging to Respondent
No.1 as well. By a declaration dated 14.12.2010 issued under

1 Writ Petition No. 105176 of 2023 (GM-RES).
14 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Section 3D(2), the land vested in the Central Government free from
all encumbrances. The competent authority by an Award dated
05.12.2011, determined the compensation under Section 3G(1) of
the 1956 Act.
4. The Appellant invoked the remedy of Arbitration under Section 3G(5)
of the 1956 Act. The Deputy Commissioner-Cum-Arbitrator, Bellary
(Arbitrator) vide Award dated 16.02.2013, redetermined the market
value of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.362/- per sq. metre, whereas
the market value of the non-agricultural land was assessed at Rs.741/-
per sq. metre. The High Court by an order dated 16.03.2019 set
aside the Arbitral Award dated 16.02.2013 and remitted the matter
to the Arbitrator for de novo consideration.
5. Pursuant to the remand, the Arbitrator conducted fresh proceedings
and passed an Award on 03.2.2022 by granting the benefit of Section
23(1-A), 23(2), 28 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(1894 Act). On 08.03.2022, the Appellant filed application under
Section 33(1)(a) of the Act before Arbitrator seeking correction of
Arbitral Award, inter alia on the ground that grant of additional market
value under Section 23 and interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act
is not legally sustainable. On 10.03.2022, the Respondent No.1 filed
an application under Section 33(4) of the Act seeking an additional
award of 50% over and above the market value on the ground that
such a claim had been raised during the Arbitral Proceeding, but the
same was omitted in the final Award. The Arbitrator by a common
order dated 04.07.2022, dismissed the applications filed under
Section 33 of the Act by the Appellant as well as Respondent No.1.
The certified copy of the said order was received by the Appellant
on 15.09.2022.
6. On 29.10.2022, the Appellant filed applications under Section 34 of
the Act along with applications seeking condonation of delay2. The
Respondent No. 1 raised an objection contending that the applications
under Section 34 of the Act were filed with delay which was beyond
the condonable period of delay of 120 days, as provided, in proviso
to Section 34(3) of the Act. The Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Bellary by an order dated 05.08.2023 condoned the delay in filing the
applications under Section 34 of the Act and allowed the same. The

2 Arbitration Application Nos. 3/2022 and 4/2022.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 15

National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr.

Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order dated 05.08.2023
in a Writ Petition3.
7. The High Court by a judgment and order dated 22.01.2024, held
that Section 33(1) (a) of the Act permits correction of computation,
clerical or typographical errors or errors of similar nature. It was further
held that the prayer made in the application filed by the Appellant
seeking modification of the Arbitral Award did not fall within the
purview of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act and hence the same was not
maintainable. The High Court concluded that the benefit of limitation
under Section 34(3) of the Act was not available and, therefore,
the limitation could not be computed from the date of disposal of
such applications. Consequently, the arbitration applications4 were
dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the Appellant
has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned senior counsel appearing
for the Appellant and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Respondent.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted
that both the parties had filed applications under Section 33 of the
Act, therefore, the Appellant could not have filed the application under
Section 34 of the Act, before disposal of the said applications. It is
contended that High Court erred in refusing to exclude the period
spent in disposal of the application under Section 33 while computing
the limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act and erred in placing
reliance on the decision in State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani
Construction Co.5 It is urged that the application under Section
33(1)(a) merely sought correction of clerical and typographical errors
in the Arbitral Award and did not amount to review of the Award. It
is submitted that the issue involved in the appeal is no longer res
integra and has been dealt with by this Court in Geojit Financial
Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav6.
10. Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No.1 submitted
that the application filed by the Appellant under Section 33(1)(a) of the

3 W.P. No. 105176/2023.
4 Arbitration Application Nos. 3/2022 and 4/2022.
5 (2007) 10 SCC 742
6 2025 INSC 1021.
16 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Act, in substance was an attempt to review the Arbitral Award and not
merely an application for correction of clerical or typographical errors.
It was contended that Appellant had sought modification of substantive
findings in the Award which fell outside the limited scope of Section
33(1)(a). It was urged that only an application which is maintainable
under Section 33 could extend the limitation under Section 34(3)
of the Act. Relying on State of Arunachal Pradesh (supra), it was
contended that since the Appellant’s application under Section 33 of
the Act was itself not maintainable, it could not claim exclusion of time
spent in disposal of the said application for the purposes of limitation.
It was argued that Arbitral Tribunal had become functus officio after
passing of the Award and therefore the merits of the dispute could
not be reopened in the guise of an application under Section 33 of
the Act. It was further argued that Appellant’s applications under
Section 34 were barred by limitation as the same were filed beyond
the statutory outer limit prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act,
even assuming that the Appellant is entitled to exclusion of time for
the period spent in disposal of application under Section 33 of the Act.
11. Having heard the rival contentions and perusing the material on
record, the issue that arises is whether the limitation under Section
34(3) would commence from the date of the original award or from
the date on which the application under Section 33 came to be
disposed of.
12. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of Sections 33 and 34
of the Act, are extracted below:
Section 33
“33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional
award. — (1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the
arbitral award, unless another period of time has been
agreed upon by the parties—
a party, with notice to the other party, may request the
arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any
clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a
similar nature occurring in the award;
(b) if so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the
other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an
interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 17

National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr.

(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under
sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction
or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt
of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the
arbitral award.
(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type
referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), on its own
initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral
award…”

Section 34
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.
(…)
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after
three months have elapsed from the date on which the
party making that application had received the arbitral
award or, if a request had been made under section 33,
from the date on which that request had been disposed
of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause from making the application
within the said period of three months it may entertain the
application within a further period of thirty days, but not
thereafter.”
13. Section 33 of the Act deals with the request made to the Arbitral
Tribunal for correction and interpretation of the award as well as for
rendering additional award. An application under Section 33 of the
Act is required to be made within a period of 30 days from the date
of the receipt of the award. From careful scrutiny of Section 34(3)
of the Act, it is evident that where a request under Section 33 of
the Act has been made, the limitation for filing an application under
Section 34 of the Act shall be reckoned from the date on which such
request is disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. The said provision
does not distinguish between the applications which are ultimately
allowed or dismissed. The said provision also does not indicate that
only an application which is maintainable under Section 33 of the
Act would defer the commencement of litigation under Section 34(3)
18 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of the Act. Had the legislature intended to restrict the benefit only to
the applications which were ultimately allowed or which were held
to be maintainable, it would have expressly provided so. The Court
cannot read into the provision a restriction which the legislature itself
has not consciously incorporated.
14. Once proceedings under Section 33 are initiated and entertained
by the Arbitral Tribunal, the award remains subject to the
limited jurisdiction of the tribunal for correction, interpretation, or
supplementation as contemplated under the provision. So long as
such proceedings remain pending, the parties cannot be compelled
to institute proceedings under Section 34 merely as a matter of
abundant caution. The parties can effectively pursue their remedy
under Section 34 only upon conclusion of the proceedings under
Section 33. Consequently, the limitation prescribed under Section
34(3) can start only from the date on which the proceedings under
Section 33 are disposed of.
15. In our view, the contention of the Respondent that only an application
which is “maintainable” under Section 33 can defer the commencement
of limitation under Section 34(3), cannot be accepted. Whether the
application under Section 33 ultimately succeeds or fails, or whether
the Arbitral Tribunal eventually finds that no correction or modification
of the award is warranted, is not determinative for the purpose of
Section 34(3). What is relevant is that whether the jurisdiction of the
Arbitral Tribunal under Section 33 had been formally invoked and that
such proceedings remained pending consideration before the tribunal.
16. The reliance placed by the Respondent on State of Arunachal
Pradesh (supra) is misplaced. That case arose in an entirely different
factual context where there was no formal application under Section
33 invoking the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. The party had
merely addressed a letter, in substance seeking review of the award
and certain ancillary clarifications beyond the contours of section
33. It was in that context, that this Court held such communication
could not entitle a fresh starting point of limitation under Section
34(3). The facts of the present case stand on an entirely different
footing. Here, formal applications under Section 33 were admittedly
filed by both parties within the statutory period, and the same were
entertained and disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal by a common
order dated 04.07.2022.
[2026] 7 S.C.R. 19

National Highway Authority of India v. T. Younis & Anr.

17. We are also of the view that the interpretation adopted by the High
Court would defeat the scheme and object of the Act. If parties
are compelled to institute proceedings under Section 34 during the
pendency of proceedings, under Section 33 merely as a matter of
abundant caution, it would result in multiplicity of proceedings and
procedural uncertainty. At the same time, it is clarified that where
applications under Section 33 are found to be sham, frivolous, or
mala fide or solely filed for the purpose of defeating limitation under
Section 34(3) of the Act, the courts would be justified in imposing
exemplary and punitive costs, as maintaining the balance between
preserving legitimate remedies and preventing abuse of process is
fundamental to effective administration of justice.
18. Even otherwise, the issue involved in the instant appeal is no longer
res integra. This Court7 after examining Sections 33 and 34(3) of the
Act has held that for the purposes of computation of limitation under
Section 34(3) of the Act, it is the date of disposal of the application
under Section 33 of the Act that would earmark the starting point of
limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Act. We are
in agreement with the view taken by this Court in aforesaid decisions.
A plain reading of Section 34(3), read in the light of the law laid down
in Geojit (supra), makes it clear that once jurisdiction under Section
33 is formally invoked and such proceedings are entertained by the
Arbitral Tribunal, the limitation for filing an application under Section
34 would commence only from the date on which such request is
disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal.
19. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the certified
copy of the common order dated 04.07.2022 disposing of the
applications under Section 33 was received by the Appellant on
15.09.2022 and that the applications under Section 34 were thereafter
filed on 07.11.2022. Thus, even reckoning limitation from the date of
receipt of the order disposing of the applications under Section 33,
the applications under Section 34 of the Act were instituted within
the period contemplated under Section 34(3) of the Act. Therefore,
the contention of the Respondent that the applications under Section
34 of the Act were barred by limitation does not merit acceptance.

7 Ved Prakash Mithal and Sons v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3181; USS Alliance v. State of
U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 778, Geojit (supra).
20 [2026] 7 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

20. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2024
passed by the High Court is set aside. The orders dated 05.08.2023
passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ballari,
condoning the delay in filing the applications under Section 34 of
the Act, are restored. The applications under Section 34 of the Act,
shall now be decided on their own merits, in accordance with the law.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan