25 March 2025 Legal Updates

Benefit Of S.14 Of Limitation Act Extends To Delayed Filing Of Petition U/S 34 Of Arbitration and Conciliation Act Due To Prosecution In Good Faith In Another Court: Bombay HC

a. Case Title:

• NTPC BHEL Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Shree Electricals & Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.

b. Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay 

c. Date of Decision:

• 17 March 2025 

d. Bench:

• Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna 

Facts

A dispute arose under a 2013 purchase order between the parties. The respondent approached the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC), Pune, under the MSME Act, leading to an arbitral award on 5 February 2020.  The appellant received the award on 21 August 2020 but filed a Writ Petition (No. 9317/2021) in the Bombay High Court instead of a Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act (ACA) application, citing jurisdictional issues based on a Division Bench judgment (Gujarat State Petronet Ltd.) 

The Writ Petition was withdrawn on 11 January 2023 after the Supreme Court overruled the Division Bench in Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. v. Mahakali Foods Pvt. Ltd. (31 October 2022). 

The appellant then filed a Section 34 application (17 March 2023) with a delay condonation plea (66 days). The District Court dismissed it as time-barred. 

Key Issues

• Whether the Section 34 application was barred by limitation under Section 34(3) ACA? 
• Whether the delay could be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 

Court’s Analysis

1. Limitation Period: 

•    The arbitral award was received on 21 August 2020. The Supreme Court’s COVID-19 orders excluded time until 28 February 2022. 
•    The appellant’s Writ Petition (pending till 11 January 2023) was pursued bona fide under then-existing law. 

2. Section 14 Limitation Act:

Five conditions for Section 14 were satisfied: 

• Prior (Writ Petition) and subsequent (Section 34) proceedings were civil. 
• The Writ Petition was prosecuted diligently and in good faith. 
• Failure due to jurisdictional defect (Supreme Court overruling). 
• Both proceedings related to the same arbitral award. 
• Both were filed in courts. 

Decision

• The High Court allowed the appeal, condoned the delay, and directed the District Court to decide the Section 34 application on merits. 
• Emphasized liberal interpretation of limitation laws to ensure substantive justice, especially during extraordinary circumstances (COVID-19 and conflicting judicial rulings). 

Key Takeaways

• Section 14 Limitation Act can exclude time spent in bona fide but defective proceedings. 
• Courts prioritize justice over technicalities in limitation disputes.  
• Withdrawal of proceedings due to jurisdictional defects does not negate good faith. 

  "Grounds Of Arrest Informed After 7 Hrs": P&H HC Declares Arrest Illegal, Says Grounds Must Be Conveyed To Accused In A Meaningful Manner  

a. Case Title: 

• P&H HC Declares Arrest Illegal

b. Court:

• High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

c. Date of Decision:

• March 11, 2025

d. Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

Facts:

The petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of his father, Pushpinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal, a music producer who was allegedly picked up from his house in Mohali on March 8, 2025, at 7:30 PM without an FIR, arrest memo, or notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS (formerly Section 41A of CrPC).

Following the court's appointment of a Warrant Officer, it was discovered that FIR No. 39 dated March 8, 2025, under various IPC sections was registered only after the court order. The arrest memo and other documents were provided to the Warrant Officer at 2:26 AM on March 9, 2025, almost seven hours after the initial detention.

Issues Raised

• Whether the detention of the petitioner's father was legal
• Whether procedural safeguards for arrest under BNSS and Constitutional provisions were followed
• Whether subsequent registration of FIR and police remand could cure procedural defects in the arrest

Petitioner's Arguments

• The FIR was registered as an afterthought to justify illegal detention
• No notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was issued
• Grounds of arrest were not supplied to the detenu
• The date of occurrence mentioned in the FIR (March 10, 2017) contradicted the time of information receipt (22:23 hrs on March 8, 2025)

State's Contentions

• The detention was legal and based on secret information recorded in DDR entries
• All legal procedures were followed during arrest
• Police remand granted by jurisdictional court validated the proceedings

Court's Analysis

The court extensively analyzed Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the BNSS, particularly focusing on:

• The constitutional requirement to inform arrestees of grounds of arrest "as soon as may be" (Article 22)
• The procedural safeguards under Section 35 of BNSS regarding when police may arrest without warrant
• The mandatory requirement under Section 47 of BNSS to communicate full particulars of the offense

The court relied heavily on recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), which held that:

• Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing
• Failure to inform grounds of arrest violates Articles 21 and 22
• Subsequent judicial remand or filing of chargesheet cannot cure this constitutional violation

Judgment:

The court allowed the petition and ordered immediate release of the detenu, declaring his arrest illegal on the following grounds:

• The detenu was subjected to custodial interrogation prior to FIR registration
• There was a seven-hour delay in informing him of the grounds of arrest
• No notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS was served
• The police failed to record reasons for believing the arrest was necessary
• Registration of FIR and preparation of arrest memo after the Warrant Officer's arrival appeared to be an attempt to justify illegal detention

The court also clarified that a Warrant Officer has only a ministerial role and cannot adjudicate on the legality of detention.