Overview
In this matter, the Delhi High Court had to determine whether an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, could extend the period of limitation for filing a petition under Section 34, even when the application wasn’t filed for the correction of the award.

The dispute arose after a majority award was passed by the arbitral tribunal in favour of HCC Samsung JV. DMRC filed an application under Section 33 requesting changes to be made to the findings on three claims. The tribunal rejected the application after which DMRC filed the petition under Section 34.

The Single Judge held that Section 33 application was basically based on a review mechanism and did not have the power to extend limitation. The Division Bench had to determine whether an application under Section 33 was only for limitation purposes, regardless of its merits, and whether the conduct of DMRC resulted in the abuse of process.

Facts of the Case

The parties entered into a contract on 28 February 2013, under which HCC Samsung JV, the respondent herein, was responsible to carry out civil works for DMRC, the appellant. Disputes arose between them related to the changes and delay in the compensation. Following the same, the respondent raised the claim on 30 July 2018. This was rejected by the appellant on 23 May 2019, and the respondent invoked arbitration.

An arbitral tribunal was constituted on 24 September 2020. The majority award was passed in favour of the respondent. On 22 March 2024, the appellant filed an application under Section 33 of the Act which questioned the findings on Claims no. 1, 2 and 3, concerning the cross passage length, overhead charges, depreciation of money, and minimum wage revisions. The application was rejected by the tribunal on 3 June 2024. 

The appellant then filed a Section 34 petition on 29 August 2024. The Single Judge held that the Section 33 application could not extend the limitation, and it was dismissed as time-barred. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 37 of the Act.. 

Legal Issues

1. Whether an application under Section 33 could extend the limitation under Section 34(3), even if it is frivolous or outside the scope of Section 33.
2. Whether the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damani Construction Co. is applicable to a Section 33 application filed within the time period.
3. Whether the conduct of DMRC resulted in the abuse of process and warranted costs.

Decision

The division bench allowed the appeal, and the order by the single judge was set aside. Placing its reliance on the case of Geojeet Financial Services Ltd. v. Sandeep Gurav and NHAI v. T. Younis, the Court held that a request which is made under Section 33 filed within 30 days along with notice to the other makes limitation under Section 34(3) run from its disposal. Its merits could not be examined to deny the benefit. The Court also distinguished Damani Construction, as it only involved a letter and not a proper formal application under Section 33.

However, the Court found the application by DMRC to be a misuse of Section 33, intended to gain more time. A cost of ?5 lakh was imposed on DMRC.

Case Reference :-  Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd. Vs. HCC Samsung JV  FAO(OS) (COMM) 74/2025, CM APPL. 25351/2025 (DB, Before C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ.)