Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MADHU JAIN
Braham Din Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Sahu Cooperative Urban Tc Soceity Ltd – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for challenging arbitral award. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. court's observations on service issues. (Para 13 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 3. arguments about notice and service of award. (Para 14 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. modification of award regarding interest. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 5. court's directive for mediation in pending disputes. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
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 22nd 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
The failure to provide a signed copy of the arbitral award invalidates the presumption of service, thus impacting the limitation period for appeals.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the Arbitrator's powers, the calculation of arbitration costs, and the recovery fee under the rules, and the court's emphasis on ....
Limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act commences from the date of receipt of the signed award, as mandated by Section 31(5), and cannot be extende....
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act starts from the date of receipt of the award, not from knowledge of later proceedings.
![Health Care, Medical & General Stores, ] Dadar, Mumbai Vs Amulya Investment, ] Through Proprietor Mr. Sameer G. Narvekar - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 98](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Bombay_1.png)
Effective service of an arbitral award must be made directly to the parties involved; service on an employee does not suffice to commence the limitation period.
Where borrowers admit loan liability in arbitration proceedings under Co-operative Societies Act, no issues need framing nor evidence recording; appellate remand solely on procedural grounds without ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
