Setting aside an arbitral award:
how long do you have?
Last reviewed: 2026-08-19 · quoted from the India Code bare-Act PDF
Not a Limitation Act Schedule article. This deadline is fixed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 does not govern it — the period, its starting point, and whether any delay can be condoned all come from the statute's own text, quoted below.
The date on which the party making the application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33 (correction/interpretation/additional award), from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal.
The statutory text
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, s.34(3) — NOT a Limitation Act Schedule articleProvision: s.34(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.'
Period: Three months; condonable by a maximum further period of thirty days on sufficient cause, 'but not thereafter'.
Time from which period begins to run: The date on which the party making the application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33 (correction/interpretation/additional award), from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal.
Open the bare Act on India Code →
In plain English
The hardest deadline in Indian civil practice: an award challenge must be filed within three months of receiving the award (or disposal of a s.33 request), extendable by at most thirty days for sufficient cause and 'not thereafter'. The Supreme Court holds this language excludes s.5 of the Limitation Act entirely — day 121 is fatal. s.12(4) of the Limitation Act does exclude the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award. Note the J&K and Ladakh adaptation orders substitute six months/sixty days for those UTs.
Where this comes up
- Party seeking to set aside a commercial arbitral award for patent illegality
- Challenge filed in the 30-day grace window with a condonation application
- Award received by one officer of a company — disputes over the date of 'receipt'
What can reset or extend this period
General rules for deadlines that live outside the Limitation Act Schedule. The specifics for this deadline are in the quoted statutory text above.
The Limitation Act applies only as far as this statute allows
Under the s.29(2) scheme, a special law's own limitation regime governs, and it can exclude s.5 condonation expressly or by its scheme — the Arbitration Act's 'but not thereafter' and the IBC's fifteen-day cap operate as hard ceilings, while the Consumer Protection Act builds its own condonation into s.69(2). Read the quoted statutory text above; the Schedule's rules do not simply carry over.
Frequently asked
Can the court condone delay beyond 3 months + 30 days?
No. The proviso says 'but not thereafter', and the Supreme Court has held s.5 of the Limitation Act inapplicable. There is no judicial power to extend beyond the 30-day grace period.
When does 'receipt' of the award happen?
On valid delivery of a signed copy to the party under s.31(5) — delivery to the party itself (not merely its lawyer) is what starts the clock; if a s.33 correction request was made, time runs from its disposal.
This is a reference to the statutory text, not advice on a live matter. Limitation is brutally fact-sensitive — when the cause of action accrued, whether an acknowledgment or part-payment reset the clock, and which exclusions under ss.4-15 apply all turn on your specific facts. This page is a reference to the statutory text, not advice on a live matter, and it does not create an advocate-client relationship. A single day's error can be fatal to a claim: s.5 condonation never applies to suits, and several special-statute deadlines (Arbitration s.34(3), IBC s.61(2)) are hard ceilings no court can extend. Verify every period against the bare Act as currently amended and against current case law, and take advice on your own facts before acting. Provisions here were reviewed on 19 August 2026.