Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present First Appeal is filed by the appellant-original opponent under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 being aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad in Misc. Application No. 6 of 2016 dated 08.12.2016 upholding the order of the sole Arbitration regarding the recovery of the amount.

2. Heard learned advocate, Shri Anandodaya Mishra for the appellant and learned advocate, Shri Shivang Shukla for the respondent.

3. Learned advocate, Shri Mishra has referred to the papers at length and submitted that as per Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act, signed copy of the award has not been served and, therefore, the issue of limitation could be considered only after it is served upon the party. Learned advocate, Shri Mishra has emphasized on two aspects that there is fundamental difference between the words "served" and "dispatched", which is required to be considered. He has also emphasized on a word "party" contending that statute has referred to word "party", meaning thereby, it has to be served to the party concerned. He referred to the papers at length to support his submission contending that there is no evidence that the signed award was served upon the appellant. For that purpose, he referred to the paper book which he had produced and pointedly referred to the acknowledgment slip of the post to contend that name of sender, Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd. is not there nor name of Arbitrator and, therefore, acknowledgment slips, which have been produced, would not be sufficient to presume that award signed by the Arbitrator is served upon the appellant. In support of his submissions, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors. v. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 496 and pointedly referred to the observations made in the said judgment with much emphasis on Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. The provisions of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act, which provides,

"31(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party."

4. Learned advocate, Shri Mishra therefore submitted that as the signed award has not been served upon, the impugned order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad at Mirzapur below application, Exh. 6 in Execution Petition No. 856 of 2015 may be quashed and set aside and the present appeal may be admitted and the stay can be granted.

5. Learned advocate, Shri Mishra submitted that the Court below has committed an error in considering the aspect of limitation. For that, he referred to the observations made in the impugned judgment on Page No. 18 referring to the background as well as the fact that the award is served upon the appellant. Learned advocate, Shri Mishra also submitted that Section 3 makes it clear that it would not have any application to the judicial proceeding. He, therefore, submitted that the present appeal may be admitted and the interim relief as prayed for regarding stay of the operation of the impugned order may be granted.

6. Learned advocate, Shri Shukla has referred to the papers to emphasis that as discussed in the impugned judgment and order by the Arbitrator, the proceedings were conducted to the knowledge of the appellants and they did not participate or rather conveniently appear in some of the proceedings and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to say that award has not been served or no opportunity in the arbitration proceedings has been given to the appellants. He submitted that if they have not remained present as observed, the award could not be said to be bad as the opportunity has been given but the appellants have failed to availed of such opportunity by not remaining present and, therefore, award cannot be said to be bad. He also referred to the papers to emphasis that copy of the award which is required to be served by the