The court confirmed that compliance with service requirements for an arbitral award can be established through proper postal dispatch and delivery confirmation under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. GA 1 of 2022 is an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The award debtor filed the said application for the following reliefs:-

“a) To declare that the purported Award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and not enforceable in the eyes of law;

b) To pass an order directing that the execution proceeding being E.C. No. 87 of 2021 is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same should be dismissed in limine;

c) An order be passed thereby staying the execution proceeding till disposal of the instant application.

d) Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (c) above.

e) To pass such order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

2. The award debtor contended that the award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Council dated November 10, 2020, was not executable. As the time for filing an application for setting aside the award had not expired, the execution case was not maintainable. The award was not served upon the award debtor. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), had not been complied with. The delivery of a signed copy of the award upon the award debtor, was the mandate of law.

3. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the award debtor submitted that, even assuming that the award was dispatched to the award debtor, which was a partnership firm, there was no proof of delivery of the same upon any of the partners. Section 2(1)(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, read with Order 30 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, required service upon the partners. Knowledge of the award was acquired when a copy of the execution application was served upon the award debtor. Section 31(5) of the said Act, cast a statutory duty upon the arbitrator and or the Council to deliver a signed copy of the award to each of the parties. As yet, the said compliance was awaited.

4. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 616 , Mr. Mukherjee submitted that the law required delivery of a copy of the award signed by the Council. The delivery of the award and receipt of the same by a party, would set in motion several periods of limitation, in respect of (a) filing an application for correction and interpretation of an award under Section 33(1), (b) filing an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4), (c) and filing an application for setting aside the award under Section 34(3) and so on. Delivery of a copy of the award had the effect of conferring certain rights on the parties and the duty to exercise those rights within the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, limitation for filing an application for setting aside the award should be calculated from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award. In this case, limitation had not begun to run and the time for challenging the award had not expired.

5. Mr. Mukherjee urged that, the procedure provided by the statute