Smt. Rashmi Vs HDFC Bank Limited (Karnataka High Court)
Karnataka High Court held that rejects arbitral award since the HDFC Bank’s claim was barred by limitation. Also held that failure of the Arbitral Tribunal to reject the claim on the said ground, is foundational and vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality on the face of the record.
Facts- The appellant has filed the present appeal u/s. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 impugning an order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the Court of the LXXXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Commercial Court. The appellant had preferred the said petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 12.02.2015 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by a sole Arbitrator. The learned Commercial Court had dismissed the petition to set aside the impugned award. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
The Arbitral Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.19,30,000/-along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 22.09.2009 till the date of payment, in favour of the respondent [HDFC]. In addition, the appellant was also directed to pay costs of Rs.15,000/-. The appellant claims that the claims made by HDFC were time barred and therefore, the impugned award was required to be set aside.
