Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
M/s. Motilal Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2016
Decided On : 28-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview and background of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. time limitation aspect of section 34 application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. high court's reasoning and interpretation of 'party'. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. 'party' requirement for arbitration communications. (Para 12 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. importance of correct delivery of the arbitral award. (Para 22 , 25) |
| 6. dismissal of appeal and directive for speedy hearing. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORDER :
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court at Calcutta (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), dated 01.03.2016, in F.M.A. No. 4576/2015, by which the order passed by the District Court in Miscellaneous Case No.12/2014, came to be set aside thereby holding that the Section 34 application, preferred by the State against the arbitral award, was time-barred.
2. We need not delve much into the facts of this litigation as we are in a position to affirm the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court on a neat question of law.
3. Here is a case in which an arbitral award came to be passed in favour of the appellant herein dated 12.11.2013. The State having suffered an award challenged the same invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act 1996’). The period of limitation prescribed for the purpose of preferring Section 34 application is 90 days. Going by the date of the award and the receipt of the xerox copy of the award by the authorised representative of the State, the period of limitation could be said to have expired on 12.02.2014. It is the case of the State that till 12.02.2014, it had no idea at all about the passing of the arbitral award. It is only when the appellant herein initiated execution proceedings that they came to know about the same. In such circumstances, they immediately preferred Section 34 application on 20.03.2014. On 03.04.2014, the State addressed a letter to the learned Arbitrator to provide for a certified copy of the arbitral award dated 12.11.2013. The letter upon which reliance has been placed by the State reads thus:
| “GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL IRRIGATION & WATERWAYS DIRECTORATE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TEESTA CANAL DIVISION NO.1 ISLAMPUR, UTTAR DINAJPUR From The Executive Engineer Teesta Canal Division No.1 Teesta Pally, Islampur Uttar Dinajpur To Justice Kalyanmoy Ganguli High Court (Retd.) 51/4, Biren Roy Road (West) Kolkata – 700008 Sub: Prayer for certified copy of the arbitral award passed on 12/11/2013 Ref. A.P. No. - 200 of 2002 in the matter of Arbitration between M/s Motilal Agrawal – vs – The State of West Bengal & Others Sir, You are requested to provide a certified copy of the arbitral award passed by your kind self on 12/11/2013 as sole arbitrator in the above cited reference at the earliest possible. It is urgently required for filing the same before the Ld. District Judge, District Court, Uttar Dinajpur before 29.04.2014 which is the next date fixed for filing the certified copy of Arbitration award in the matter of Misc.12/2014 (Arbitration) – State of West Bengal Vs. M/S Motilal Agarwal. In this context, I would like to inform you that certified copy of the said award was not delivered to the undersigned or the department from your end on 12/11/2013. Charges for certified copy, if any, will be paid to you. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, (NRAJ KUMAR SINGH) Executive Engineer Teesta Canal Division No.1 Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur” |
4. The Section 34 application being time-barred, according to the District Court, was not entertained and in such circumstances, the Miscellaneous Case No.12/2014 came to be dismissed.
5. The State being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Court dismissing the application being Miscellaneous Case No.12/2014 went before t
AI
The court established that non-compliance with the mandatory delivery of the arbitral award affects the limitation period for filing an application to set aside the award.
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only from the date the aggrieved party receives a signed copy of the aw....
![Health Care, Medical & General Stores, ] Dadar, Mumbai Vs Amulya Investment, ] Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 98](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_1.png)
Effective service of an arbitral award must be made directly to the parties involved; service on an employee does not suffice to commence the limitation period.
Limitation for setting aside an arbitral award commences on receipt of a signed copy; photocopies satisfy statutory requirements under modern arbitration practices.
The reckoning point for filing an application for setting aside an arbitral award is the date of receipt of the signed copy, not merely the signing, with strict requirements for delivery under the Ar....
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Sections 31(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration Act begins upon receipt of a signed copy, making timely receipt crucial for valid appeals.
The reckoning point for limitation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act begins only upon the party receiving the signed copy of the arbitral award, not merely upon its delivery to an advocate.
The delivery of a signed copy of an arbitral award under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act is essential for initiating limitation periods, but actual knowledge and acknowledgment of the award by a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
