The failure to provide a signed copy of the arbitral award invalidates the presumption of service, thus impacting the limitation period for appeals.

Judgment :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 22^nd January, 2026 passed by the Chairman, Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter ‘DCT’) inAppeal No. 032/2023/DCT titled‘ Braham Din Pandey and Ors. v. The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd. ’(hereinafter, ‘the impugned order’).

3. Vide the impugned order, the DCT has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioners challenging the Arb. Case No. 1006/Ar/Arb/11-12 dated 25th January, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘the arbitral award’). The appeal has been dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Further, the DCT has also refused to condone the delay on the ground that there is no justifiable explanation for seeking condonation of delay after almost12years. 4. The background of the present case is that, the Petitioners had availed certain personal loans from the Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd (hereinafter, ‘the Society’) and had defaulted in repayment of the same. The Society had commenced arbitral proceedings which had culminated in the Arbitral Award dated 25^th January2012 against the Petitioners.The same was an ex-parte Award as the Petitioners had not appeared in the arbitral proceedings.

5. The Petitioners case is that they did not receive a copy of the arbitral award, thereby they filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 and application under Section139 of the Delhi Co-operative SocietyAct,2003 on 16th November, 2019. However, despite the same, the Petitioners were not provided with a copy of the arbitral award. Subsequently, sometime in October 2019, Society sought from the Petitioners a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for settling the matter.

6. Pursuant thereto, in August 2021, the Petitioners filed a consumer complaint No. 136/2021 against the Society before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East. In response to the said complaint, the Registrar Co-operative Societies (hereinafter, ‘RCS’) filed a copy of the arbitral award.

7. Thereafter, Petitioners filed an appeal challenging the Arbitral Award, before the DCT. Vide the impugned order, the appeal of the Petitioners was dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

8. The case of the Petitioners is that they did not receive the signed copy of the arbitral award. It is also stated that the Petitioners became aware of the arbitral award for the first time sometime in January, 2023, when the same was attached by the RCS in pleadings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North-East.

9. On the last date of hearing i.e., 13th February, 2026, notice was issued to the Society and RCS.

10. On the said date, Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj and Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld. Counsels accepted notice for the Society and RCS, respectively. Ld. Counsel for the RCS was to inform the Court as to when the signed copy of the arbitral award was served upon the Petitioners.

11. Today, Ms. Urvi Mohan, ld. Counsel for the RCS submits that she is unable to obtain the instructions as to when the signed copy of the arbitral award was served upon the Petitioners.

12. Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, ld. Counsel for the Society also submits that he is not aware as to when the arbitral award was served on the Petitioners.

13. Further, ld. Counsel for the Society relies upon paragraph 5.1, 7 and 8 of the impugned order to argue that the DCT has passed a reasoned order.

14. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the ld. Arbitrator has proceeded in an extremel