Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 7364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J
D.K. Bhuiya – Appellant
Versus
A. K. Sinha – Respondent
ARBA No. 4 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Arbitration
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
An appellant purchased a flat from a developer, leading to construction disputes. While a consumer dispute was settled amicably, the respondent obtained an ex parte arbitral award dated 18.08.2016. The appellant claimed non-receipt of the signed award and gained knowledge of it only during execution proceedings in July 2019. An application under Section 34 was filed on 04.01.2022, which was rejected by the District Court on grounds of limitation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Court erred by reckoning limitation from the date of pronouncement of the award rather than the date of receipt of the signed copy. Without establishing compliance with Section 31(5) through cogent material, the application cannot be rejected purely based on the date of the award.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the Section 34 application on the ground of limitation was justified without verifying the date of receipt of the signed copy of the award under Section 31(5).
Ratio Decidendi: If the signed copy of the arbitral award is not delivered to the party, it does not amount to compliance with Section 31(5), and the three-month limitation period under Section 34(3) must be computed from the date the party actually receives the signed copy, not from the date of the award's pronouncement.
Result: Appeal allowed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sweksha Sharma
For the Respondents: Punit Ruparel
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
