The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, begins upon transmission/delivery of the award; unsubstantiated technical failures or a lawyer's failure to notify the client do not extend this statutory period.

(ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act, 1996), whereby the appellant had challenged the Arbitral Award dated 07.10.2023.

2. The petition was dismissed, primarily of the ground that the petition is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition has stated the following:-

“13. However, it emerges from the record that the Petitioner, from the very same email address from which it claims non-receipt of the award, addressed emails to the learned Sole Arbitrator dated 07.12.2023 and 23.12.2023 [Annexed as Doc PIA-2 and Doc PIA-4 respectively, of the "Affidavit dated 05.10.2024 on behalf of the Petitioner"].

14. By way of the aforesaid e-mail communications, the Petitioner specifically requested the learned Arbitrator to provide a signed copy of the arbitral award.

15. The fact that the Petitioner was able to successfully communicate from the said email address from December, 2023 onwards clearly belies the submission advanced on its behalf that the email system was non-functional during October, 2023, when the award was transmitted.

16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further seeks to rely upon certain averments contained in the written submissions to the effect that the licence granted to the Petitioner by the Reserve Bank of India stood cancelled owing to complaints made by borrowers/end users. Based upon that, it is contended that the cancellation of the licence rendered the Petitioner's email systems inoperative, thereby preventing receipt of the arbitral award.

17. This Court is unable to accept the said submissions. Apart from the fact that no material has been placed on record to substantiate the assertion that the Petitioner's email address was non-functional during the relevant period, the subsequent email communications sent by the Petitioner itself from the same address wholly undermine the plea sought to be advanced.

18. In the absence of any cogent material demonstrating that the Petitioner was prevented, for reasons beyond its control, from receiving the arbitral award at the time it was duly transmitted, the explanation offered for the delay cannot be accepted as bona fide or sufficient.

19. At this stage, this Court expresses its strong disapproval of the fact that, despite it being an admitted position that the arbitral award was passed on 07.10.2023 and that the present petition was filed only on 01.04.2024, the Petitioner deliberately chose not to file any application seeking condonation of delay at the time of institution of the petition, notwithstanding its intention to advance various purported explanations for the delay. It was only after the matter was listed and pursuant to subsequent directions of this Court that an affidavit purporting to explain the delay came to be filed, which, in the opinion of this Court, is wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient for the reasons discussed hereinabove.

20. Consequently, this Cami has no hesitation in holding that the present petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Act, and is, therefore, barred by limitation.

CONCLUSION:

21. In view of the foregoing, the present petition under Section 34 of the Act, stands dismissed as being barred by limitation, having been filed beyond the period pr