Venture Global Engineering vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. and another (2008) 4 SCC 190

foreign award could be challenged under Section 34 of Arbitration act

State of Maharashtra Vs. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. – AIR 2010 SC 1299

amendment in application- where application under Section 34 of Arbitration Act has been made within the prescribed time, leave to amend grounds, in such an application, if the peculiar circumstances of the case and the interest of justice so warrant, can be granted.

Sent from my iPod

Union of India v. M/s. Popular Construction Co., AIR 2001 SC 4010

As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is concerned, the crucial words are 'but not thereafter' used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To hold that the Court could entertain an application to set aside the Award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase 'but not thereafter' wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result. Thus sec 5 of limitation Act is not apllicable to arbitration Act.

Chief Engineer of B.P.D.P./R.E.O. v. M/s. Scoot Wilson Kirpatrick India Pvt. Ltd., 2006(11) SCC 622

There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act. But the question in the instant case is not about the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and question really is whether the appeal was maintainable. The High Court did not consider this aspect. The appeal is clearly maintainable.