The limitation period for filing an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act commences upon receipt of a signed copy of the arbitral award, not an uncertified copy.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This appeal is filed under Section 13 (1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, preferred against an order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Com.AP No.13/2024 by LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-86) ('Commercial Court') in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short).

2. We have heard Shri. H. Shanthibhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for the appellant as well as Smt. Princy Ponnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned DSGI submits that the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court has been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the time provided under (3) of the Arbitration Act. It is contended that since the certified copy of the award had been issued to the appellant only on 04.01.2024, the application under Arbitration Act preferred on 23.01.2024 was well within time. It is contended that what was communicated to the appellant through email on 13.09.2023 was only a copy of the award and that the hard copy which was received by the appellant on 20.09.2023 was also not a duly authenticated certified copy. It is therefore contended that the finding of the Commercial Court that the application filed on 23.01.2024 is out of time, is clearly erroneous.

4. The learned DSGI would place reliance on the following judgments:-

M/s. Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and Another , by Order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.4480 of 2016;

State of Maharashtra and Others v. ARK Builders Private Limited , reported in (2011) 4 SCC 616;

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited , reported in (2021) 7 SCC 657 ; and

Kristal Vision Projects Private Limited v. Union of India , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3738.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that, admittedly, on a signed copy of the award was sent by email by the Arbitrator to the appellant on 13.09.2023 along with a covering letter. The covering note reads as follows:-

"Dear All,

Please find the Award (37 pages, as attachment) made and signed by me today i.e., 13.09.2023.

Regards.

(SUDHIR KUMAR)

Sole Arbitrator"

6. Further, in the application preferred by the appellant before the Commercial Court itself clearly stated that the signed copy of the award had been received by the appellant on 20.09.2023. It is submitted that even if that date is taken as the date of receipt of signed copy of the award, the period of three months would expire on 19.12.2023 and the further 30 days would expire on 19.01.2024. It is submitted that since the application was admittedly made only on 23.01.2024, it was out of time and the Commercial Court was perfectly justified in having rejected the application. It is further contended that what is contemplated under the provisions of the Arbitration Act is the communication of a signed copy of the award and that the signing of the award by the sole arbitrator itself would be the authentication required.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would place reliance on the following judgments:-

Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Dept. of Sports, Govt. of India v. ERNST and Young Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as ERNST and Young LLP) and Another, by Order dated 23.08.2023 passed in O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2018;

Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Lakhvinder Singh , reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9810, and

Continental Telepower Industri