Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1462
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Hi Style India Pvt. Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Rakesh Corporation - Respondent
Arbitration Petition (L) No. 1127 of 2018 Alongwith Interim Application (L) No. 15527 of 2024
Decided On : 19-11-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Avinash Wadhwani
For the Respondent: Mr. Dhruva Gandhi
The challenge to an arbitral award under Section 34 must be filed within three months, with a further extension of only thirty days, beyond which the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such challenges.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Challenge to Arbitral Award - Petition dismissed as filed beyond limitation period - Delay not condoned; proper jurisdiction and adherence to timeline are crucial in arbitration proceedings. (Paras 4, 26, 42)
(B) Arbitration Agreement - Validity - An arbitration clause in an invoice can exist even if not signed by both parties; subsequent conduct can indicate acceptance. (Paras 15, 19)
(C) Jurisdiction - Courts cannot intervene in the absence of shown defects, nor condone delays beyond statutory periods. (Paras 41, 40)
Facts of the case:
The Petition was filed under Section 34, challenging an Arbitral Award directing Hi Style to pay Rakesh Corporation Rs.15,80,895/-. Hi Style’s absence from multiple hearings led to an ex parte award.
Findings of Court:
The Petition was rejected due to non-compliance with the limitation period; Hi Style's failure to participate validly in arbitration procedure undermined its challenge.
Issues: The court addressed whether the claim was within the statutory limitation and whether the arbitration agreement existed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that the failure of Hi Style to raise objections in a timely manner barred its challenge to the award, affirming the need for strict adherence to statutory timelines.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arbitral award details and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge filed beyond statutory limitation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on the existence of an arbitration agreement. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis on limitations and arbitration agreement validity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. clarification on section 34 limitations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. delivery requirements of the arbitral award. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. court's agreement on previous rulings regarding award delivery. (Para 33 , 34) |
| 8. failure of hi style to act within limit and conditions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. conclusion on dismissal of petition. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGEMENT :
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
Context and Factual Background:
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an Arbitral Award dated May 9, 2018 (“Impugned Award”) passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator appointed by the Mumbai Textile Merchants’ Mahajan (“Mahajan”).
2. The Impugned Award essentially directs the Petitioner, Hi Style India Pvt. Limited (“Hi Style”) to pay to the Respondent, Rakesh Corporation (“Rakesh”) a sum of Rs.15,80,895/-. The awarded amount comprises payment of Rs.~11.94/- Lakhs against the bill dated May 28, 2016 along with interest thereon in the sum of Rs.~3.76/- Lakhs until the date of the Impugned Award, and a further sum of Rs.10,500/-being the cost of arbitration.
3. It is seen from the record that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal had given Hi Style multiple opportunities to present its say at hearings – those fixed on July 6, 2017, August 31, 2017, October 26, 2017, December 2, 2017 and February 27, 2018. Hi Style entered appearance on August 31, 2017 and thereafter did not attend any of the hearings. It is also seen from the record that between October 24, 2017 and March 1, 2018, in respect of the hearings scheduled, Hi Style, through e-mails sent by one Ram PS, styled as “Head Merchandiser” of Hi Style sought adjournment requesting for a new date, among others stating that Hi Style would appear in person with the “relevant documents and papers” and “provide necessary information and statements” in connection with the arbitral proceedings. One such letter dated October 24, 2017 is sent by one Sharon Kiron on behalf of Hi Style. The Impugned Award is therefore an ex parte award that had to be passed without the participation of Hi Style in the hearings, seeking of course, adjourments at every scheduled hearing.
Facet of Limitation:
4. At the threshold, Mr. Dhruva Gandhi, Learned Advocate on behalf of Rakesh would submit that this Court is devoid of jurisdiction to deal with the challenge inasmuch as the challenge to the Arbitral Award has been filed way beyond the period of limitation statutorily provided for in the Act even after including the period in which this Court has been granted powers to condone the delay.
5. The Impugned Award is dated May 9, 2018 and is said to have been received from the Mahajan by way of covering letter dated May 15, 2018, which was eventually received on May 23, 2018. Accepting this date as the admitted date of receipt, the three-month period referred to in Section 34(3) of the Act would have expired on August 23, 2018. The further period of 30 days within which this Court would have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the aforesaid period of three months, expired on September 23, 2018. Admittedly, the challenge under Section 34 of the Act had been mounted on October 5, 2018.
6. Therefore, Mr. Gandhi would contend that while there is not even a whisper of seeking any condonation of delay on the part of Hi Style, even if it had done so, the delay is of such an order that it is beyond the scope of condonation envisaged in the law.
7. To counter this contention, Mr. Avinash Wadhwani, Learned Advocate on behalf of Hi Style would contend that the Impugned Award is a complete nullity inasmuch as it i
