Limitation for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, commences only from the date the party receives a signed copy of the award as mandated by Section 31(5), not from the date of the award's pronouncement.

C A V Judgment

1. This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1996’) is directed against the order dated

05.11.2022 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Durg

(C.G.) in M.J.C. Civil No. 17/2022, whereby the learned Court has

2

ARBA No. 4 of 2023

rejected the application preferred by the appellant under Section 34 of

the Act, 1996 on the ground of limitation by declining to condone the

delay, and consequently affirmed the arbitral award dated 18.08.2016

passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator.

2. (a) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant purchased

Flat No. 21 situated on the second floor of “Kanchanpuram Apartment”

from the respondent/developer pursuant to an agreement dated

19.12.2007 for a total sale consideration of ₹16,50,000/-, which amount

was admittedly paid through cheques. Subsequently, the said amount

reached upto ₹25,00,000/- owing to interior, furniture, putti work, etc.

According to the appellant, despite receipt of the entire consideration,

the respondent failed to provide the promised amenities and delivered

possession of a flat suffering from serious construction defects,

including deficient finishing work, non-functional lift facility, etc.

thereby compelling the appellant to institute Consumer Complaint No.

CC/14/69 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Durg, on 12.03.2014 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade

practice. The District Forum, upon appreciation of the material on

record, allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.08.2015 and awarded

compensation of ₹4,55,000/- in favour of the appellant. In appeal

preferred by the respondent, the State Commission remanded the matter

for technical inspection. Thereafter, upon reconsideration and in light of

the inspection report, the District Forum once again awarded

compensation of the same amount of ₹4,55,000/- by order dated

3

ARBA No. 4 of 2023

19.12.2016. The respondent carried the matter in further appeal,

whereupon the State Commission, vide order dated 22.04.2017, partly

modified the award and reduced to ₹3,23,000/- (Rs.2,23,000/- towards

compensation and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment). The

respondent herein thereafter filed Revision Petition No. 1421/2017

(Arvind Sinha @ A.K. Sinha v Dilip Kumar Bhuiyan) before the National

Commission, New Delhi, wherein the respondent herein personally

appeared before the Forum and the appellant herein represented through

his counsel and made a submission that the parties arrived at an amicable

settlement for a sum of ₹2,23,000/-, and the proceedings were finally

disposed of on 06.02.2018 in terms of the compromise, thus bringing the

consumer dispute between the parties to a quietus.

(b) It is the appellant/buyer’s case that notwithstanding the aforesaid

proceedings, disputes purportedly arising out of the same agreement

dated 19.12.2007 were referred to arbitration, and the learned Sole

Arbitrator proceeded ex parte to pass an award dated 18.08.2016

directed the appellant/buyer to pay an amount of Rs.4,03,000/- along

with interest at the rate of 18% per annum to the respondent/developer.

The appellant asserts that no signed copy of the arbitral award was ever

delivered to him in the manner contemplated under Section 31(5) of the

Act, 1996, and that he remained unaware of the said award. According to

him, knowledge of the award was acquired for the first time on

23.07.2019 during the course of execution proceedings initiated by the

respondent under Section 36 of the Act in Execution Case No. 267/2017.

4

ARBA No. 4 of 2023

Immediately upon gaining such knowledge, the appellant, acting bona

fide and within the statutory period computed from the date of

knowledge, filed an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on

07.09.2019, however, the said application was inadvertently filed in the

pending execution proceedings instead of by way of an independent

application. The application was subsequently withdrawn on 21.12.2021,

and thereafter a properly constituted applic