The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Sections 31(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration Act begins upon receipt of a signed copy, making timely receipt crucial for valid appeals.

1. This appeal under S.37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'the Act, 1996') is against the order dated 1 - 11-2023 (Annexure - A / 1) passed by the Judge, Commercial Court (District Level), Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in case No.Arb.MJC 26 of 2023 wherein the application preferred under S.34 (3) of the Act, 1996 seeking condonation of delay in filing the application under S.34 was dismissed. The appellant - Superintending Engineer, National Highways is in appeal.

2. (i) The facts involved in this case are that the joint venture company namely; ECI - KEYSTONE was entered into a contract agreement for construction of two lane road at certain different distances from Bhopalapatnam to Jagdalpur under the LWE scheme. The contract price was Rs.184,54,47,686.69. Admittedly, the extension was granted to the respondent up till 30-6-2019. During the course of execution of the contract, certain dispute arose between the parties which led to appointment of the Arbitrator as per clause 25.3 (a) of the contract. The respondent invoked the arbitration clause under special condition of contract. The appellant Department also acceded to such appointment, consequently, the Sole Arbitrator was appointed. Subsequently, the Department was advised by the Ministry of Road that since high stakes were involved in the project, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of clause 25.3 the arbitration should be conducted by a panel of three Arbitrators. Consequently, an application was moved and initial consent though was withdrawn by the Department on 16-8 - 2021, but the proceeding by the time conducted before the Sole Arbitrator and the award was passed on 2-9-2022 (Annexure - A / 2).

(ii) The said arbitral award was assailed by the appellant before the Commercial Court (District Level), Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh, by filing an application under S.34 of the Act, 1996 along with the application under S.36 (3) for grant of stay and application under S.34 (3) for condonation of delay with a prayer to set aside the award on the ground that the appellant was not permitted to present the case and the prayer was made to set aside the ex parte award.

(iii) According to the appellant, the arbitral award was not signed and received by the appellant and only received a photocopy of the award lately. The date wise events are that : copy of the award along with summons of execution proceeding received on 10-2-2023; thereafter, the demand was raised for supply of signed copy of the award on 11-3-2023; on 14-3-2023 reply was sent by the Sole Arbitrator stating that he has already sent the award to the appellant; the Superintending Engineer by letter dated 17-3-2023 informed that no entry has been made in the office register regarding receipt of award; thereafter, on 20-3-2023 the legal opinion was sought by the Superintending Engineer from the office of the Advocate General; ? on 23-3-2023 legal opinion was sent; thereafter, on 24-3-2023 again a letter was sent by the Superintending Engineer to the Sole Arbitrator to send signed copy of the award; in reply to it on 25-3-2023 the Sole Arbitraor replied that the award has been sent by registered post; subsequently, on 27-4-2023 the Superintending Engineer wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer seeking departmental enquiry against the erring Clerk; a complaint was made to the police on 27-4-2023; again a letter dated 24-5-2023 was sent by the Superintending Engineer to the Sole Arbitrator and requested for signed copy of the award; and thereafter, the appeal was filed.

(iv) Learned Commercial Court observed that since the award was passed on 2-9-2022 and the application to set aside the same was preferred on 27-5-2023 after nine months, the application was barred by time and accordingly dismissed the same by the order impugned. Thus, this appeal.

3.(a) Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellant would submit that as per S.31(5) of the Act, 1996 it is incumbent upon the Arbitrator to deliver