SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (india) Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Ashok Khanna - Respondent
First Appeal From Order (Comm) No. 37 of 2021; Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 29892 of 2020, 29927 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Abdhesh Chaudhary, Advocate, M.K. Hingorani, Advocate, Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, Ajay Gupta, Advocate

The period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 commences from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award by the applicant.

Headnote:

Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34(3) - Act - Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The controversy revolved around the date on which the limitation to file the application under Section 34 of the Act commenced. The appellant claimed that the limitation period commenced on 07.09.2018, while the respondent argued that it commenced on 02.08.2018. The court referred to various judgments including Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. to establish that the period of limitation commences from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award by the applicant. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's argument and held that the appellant attempted to mislead the court.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the Order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned District Judge, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 02.08.2018. The dispute was regarding the date on which the limitation to file the application under Section 34 of the Act commenced.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the appellant's argument and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant attempted to mislead the court.

Issues: The main issue was the date on which the limitation to file the application under Section 34 of the Act commenced.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on various judgments to establish that the period of limitation commences from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award by the applicant.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's argument and held that the appellant attempted to mislead the court.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the Order dated 07.03.2020 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) 02, South-East District, Saket, Delhi, in OMP (COMM) 30 of 2018, titled M/s Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Ltd. of the appellant herein filed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the application under Section 34 of the Act in challenge to the Arbitral Award dated 02.08.2018 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. The controversy, in brief, is the date on which the limitation to file the application under Section 34 of the Act commenced. This dispute is premised on the underlined submission of the appellant that the signed copy of the Arbitral Award was received by the appellant only on 07.09.2018, while it is the case of the respondent, which has also been accepted by the learned District Judge, that the signed copy of the Arbitral Award was supplied to the appellant by the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter referred to as the DIAC ), under whose aegis the arbitration proceedings had been conducted, on 02.08.2018 itself, that is, the date of the Arbitral Award.

3. As the issue involved is only of period of limitation for filing of the application under Section 34 of the Act, both the parties have rightly not made any submissions on the merit of the Arbitral Award nor shall we be discussing the same in this present appeal.

4. Sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act reads as under:

    "34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.

      (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."

      5. It is no longer res integra that the period of limitation provided under Section 34(3) of the Act commences from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award by the applicant. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239; State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616; and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitram Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,2021 SCCOnLine(SC) 157.

      6. As noted hereinabove, the dispute between the parties in the present appeal is only with regard to the date on which the appellant received a signed copy of the Arbitral Award. It is the case of the appellant that by an e-mail dated 30.07.2018, the parties to the arbitration proceedings were informed by the DIAC that the learned Sole Arbitrator will pronounce the Arbitral Award on 02.08.2018 at 02:30 pm. The parties were further informed, as under:

        "The Original Signed Award is only handed over to the parties in person and not to their respective Counsel. The same is handed over to the respective Counsel only on an Authorization letter / email by the respective party."

        7. On 02.08.2018, the appellant was represented before the learned Arbitrator by Mr. Mahanand Joshi, the Legal Officer of the appellant. The learned Arbitrator, in her Procedural Order dated 02.08.2018, refused to give a signed copy of the Arbitral Award to Mr. Joshi as he was not the Authorised Representative of the appellant. The Procedural Order dated 02.08.2018 recorded, as under:

          "The Respondent filed its written submissions on 16.07.2018 and the Claimant on 27.07.2018. Stamp paper supplied by the Claimant. Award announced. Signed copy of the

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  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

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top