IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that non-compliance with the mandatory delivery of the arbitral award affects the limitation period for filing an application to set aside the award.

JUDGMENT :

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This order shall also govern the disposal of Arbitration Appeal Nos. 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 84 of 2024, as in all the cases, identical issue regarding limitation in filing the application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act of 1996”) is involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts as narrated in Appeal No. 57 of 2024 are being taken into consideration.

3. This appeal has been filed under section 37(1)(C) of the Act of 1996 against the order dated 6-4-2024, passed in M.J.C. No. 12 of 2023 by Additional First District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar whereby in a proceedings under section 34 of the Act of 1996, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 National Highway Authority of India under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the case, has been allowed and the application filed under section 34 of the Act of 1996 has been rejected on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as provided under section 34(3) of the Act of 1996. It is held by the District Court that the application has been filed after a delay of 73 days, over and above 120 days as provided under section 34(3) of the Act of 1996.

4. Shri Akash Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a rustic villager and is not aware of the provisions of the Act of 1996, and when he received the certified copy of the award, the appeal was filed within reasonable period of time. Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the award passed by the District Magistrate, Dhar under the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (in short “the Act of 1956”) in respect of the land acquisition proceedings of village Amodiya, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar wherein the copy of the award has been sent only to the Sub-Divisional Officer for further processing of the same, however, no copy has been sent to the appellant Ganpat. Thus, it is submitted that the Collector, Dhar has not complied with the mandatory provisions of section 31(5) of the Act of 1996, which provides that a copy of the award is required to be furnished to all the parties concerned. It is submitted that since the copy of the award itself was not furnished to the appellant, after the certified copy of the same was provided to him by some acquaintance, the appeal has been preferred soon thereafter.

5. Counsel has submitted that the award was passed on 14-9-2022, whereas section 34 application was filed on 18-4-2023, which the learned Judge of the District Court has held to be barred by 73 days. It is also submitted that in the absence of proper compliance of section 31(5) of the Act of 1996, the application for condonation of delay ought to have been allowed by the learned Judge of the District Court. In support of his submission, Shri Akash Sharma has also relied upon decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, reported as (2005) 4 SCC 239 paras 8, 10 and 13. Similarly in the case of Benarsi Krishna Committee and others vs. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited, reported as (2012) 9 SCC 496 also the Supreme Court has held that the provisions as contained in section 31(5) of the Act of 1996 are mandatory. It is also submitted that a question of limitation is always a mixed question of facts and law and ought to have been tried by the learned Judge of the District Court after framing issues. Thus, the case is also liable to be remanded back.

6. On the other hand, the application is opposed by Ms. Anita Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the appellant has miserably failed to file the application within time as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, and no further arguments can be advanced for the appellant that the said copy was not received by the appellant on the date,