The presumption of service of a registered post under the Indian Evidence Act and General Clauses Act is crucial in determining the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitration award.

ORDER

Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The appellants have preferred the instant appeal aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the objection application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") rejected on the ground of limitation.

2. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that the award in question was passed by the arbitrator on 14.10.2013.The appellants were not provided with the copy of the award. It is also contended that on 23.07.2014, the appellants came to know about passing of the award when the notice for attachment of movable and immovable property, filed in Execution Application No.509/2014 was received by the father of the appellants. It is further contended that the application under Section 34 of the Act was filed within the time prescribed and since the copy of the award was not served on the appellants, the effective date for filing of the objection would start from the date when the appellants got knowledge of passing of the award.

3. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Union of India Versus Teeco Trichy Engineers and Contractors: (2005) 4 SCC 239 and State of Maharashtra & Ors. Versus A.R.K. Builders Pvt. Ltd.: (2011) 4 SCC 616. It is argued that learned Commercial Court has failed to consider the settled principle of law that the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the award was received by the party concerned.

4. We have considered the contentions and carefully perused the record.

5. As per the record of the arbitration proceedings, the copy of the award was sent to the appellants on 14.10.2013. The postal dispatch receipt mentions the date of dispatch as 18.10.2013. In view of provisions of Section 114, Illustration (f) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, there is a presumption that the addressee has received the letter sent by registered post and this presumption is rebuttable on consideration of evidence of impeccable character. From the perusal of the record, it is also revealed that the notice of arbitration proceedings was served upon the appellants and they appeared before the arbitrator and thereafter, failed to appear in the arbitration proceedings. From the perusal of the record, it is further revealed that the appellants have taken different stands at different places. Before learned Commercial Court in application filed under Section 34 of the Act, it is pleaded that the appellants came to know about the issuance of the attachment order on 23.07.2014 and thereafter, after perusal of the record, it came to their notice that arbitration award has been passed on 14.10.2013. However, in the present appeal, it is mentioned that the appellants for the very first time only learnt about the award on 23.07.2014 when the notice for attachment of movable and immovable property was issued. In the present appeal, it is pleaded by the appellants that the copy of the award was hand delivered to the appellants' father on 23.07.2014 when the execution proceedings were initiated based on ex-parte award and the award copy was not provided on demand by the process server to the appellants' father.

6. From the perusal of the record of learned Commercial Court, it is evident that the copy of the award, which was submitted with the application under Section 34 of the Act, was the photocopy of the signed copy of the award for the respondent and signed by the sole arbitrator. The fact that the signed copy of the award was sent to the appellants is clearly established by the postal receipt. The fact that the copy which was sent to the respondent with a seal mentioning "signed copy for respondent", was filed with the application under Section 34 of the Act, establishes that the original copy, which was sent by the registered post, was received by the appellants. Learned Commercial Court has taken note of the above and has rightly cam