The necessity of delivering a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party to begin the running of the limitation period under Section 34 of the A&C Act.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through this appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘A&C Act’), the appellant assails the correctness of the order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition u/s 34 of A& C Act.

The Facts:-

2. Some skeleton facts are required to be noticed. In this case, the sole Arbitrator commenced the proceedings under A&C Act in view of a reference made by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council,(hereinafter referred to as 'the Council) in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 18 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MSMED Act 2006’) The Arbitrator, after reserving on 24.09.2018, pronounced the award on 27.09.2018. A photocopy of the award is available on the record requisitioned from the Court. On careful perusal thereof, it becomes apparent that a copy of the award was received by one person on 29.09.2018. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that he has received a copy of the award. There is no endorsement either by the Arbitrator or by his Secretariat that a copy of the award has been received by the appellant or dispatched to the appellant.

3. In the petition filed by the appellant under Section 19 of MSMED Act, 2006 read with Section 34 of A&C Act on 18.04.2019, it was asserted that the copy of the award has been received on 19.12.2018. Apart therefrom, an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 days was also filed.

4. No reply to the application for condonation of delay was filed by the respondent, although, the proceedings remained pending before the learned Additional District Judge for a period of more than 1 year and 6 months. The Court held that since it was filed beyond the period of 30 days, after elapse of original period of three months from the date of award, therefore, the delay in filing the petition cannot be condoned.

5. It is important to note that pending proceedings before Additional District Judge, an application for summoning the record of the Arbitrator was filed by the appellant, however, it was kept pending. On the other hand, the respondent filed an application under Section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006, before the learned Additional District Judge. Yet another application for release of the amount deposited and advancement of the date of hearing was also filed by the respondent. The respondent in support of his oral plea, produced a copy of a receipt issued by the Indian Posts alongwith a print out of the tracking details of the consignment in order to prove that the copy of the award was delivered to the appellant.

The Reasons for dismissal by the Court below:-

6. On careful perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it is apparent that the application for condonation of delay was dismissed on the following grounds:-

(i) On perusal of the photocopy of the award produced along with the petition it is apparent that there is an endorsement dated 29.09.2018.

(ii) Learned counsel representing the respondent has stated at Bar that since he belongs to Panipat, therefore, he had sent a copy of the award to the appellant by speed post and from the receipt and tracking consignment details, it is proved that the item was delivered to appellant on 12.10.2018.

(iii) The appellant has pleaded that after a period of two months from the day when the Learned Arbitrator reserved its award, they enquired from the sole Arbitrator who informed them that the award has already been pronounced on 27.09.2018. The Court has observed that the only source to obtain the copy of the award was from the Council but photocopy of the award attached with the petition u/s 34 A & C Act does not show that it was issued by the council.

7. On these grounds the court has held that since the petition under Section 19 of the MSMED Act,