Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17052
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Authum Investment and Infrastructure Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Taraashna Financial Services Limited – Respondent
FAO(OS) (COMM) 283/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vibha Mahajan Seth, Akhil Sachar, Sunanda Tulsyan, Shweta Pattanaik, Vidhit Verma, Kashish Maheshwari
For the Respondents: Manik Dogra, Munawwar Naseem, Namrata Langade, Dhruv Pande, Imon Bhattacharya
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34(3) is strict. Service at the last known address is deemed valid, and parties cannot unilaterally alter the date of receipt to circumvent limitation without substantial evidence of lack of knowledge.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation - Section 34(3) - Computation of period - A party cannot deviate from its consistently stated date of receipt of an award to bring a petition within the limitation period, especially when the supporting evidence is a self-serving document. (Para 30, 34)
(B) Service of Award - Deemed Service - Section 3 of the Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act - Service of the award at the last known address of the party constitutes valid delivery; failure to notify the Arbitrator about a change of address does not invalidate such service. (Para 35)
(C) Receipt of Award - Non-working day - Distinction from Himachal Techno Engineers case - The principle that delivery on a holiday is not 'receipt' applies only where the party has no knowledge of the delivery; it does not apply where the party admits receipt on that day. (Para 31, 32)
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was filed within the statutory period of limitation.
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
1. This appeal under Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) has been filed assailing the judgment dated 01.10.2024 (hereinafter ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in OMP (Comm.) No. 276/2023 titled ‘Reliance Commercial Finance Limited v. Taraashna Financial Services Limited’ whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the objections to the Arbitral Award (hereinafter the ‘Award’ ) under Section 34 of the Act on the ground of being beyond the statutory period of limitation.
2. The Appellant is a Non-Banking Financial Company registered under the Companies Act. 1956 engaged in the business of lending secured/unsecured loans and caters to small and medium enterprises. The Appellant was formerly known as Reliance Commercial Finance Limited, prior to a de-merger in terms of the order dated 10.05.2024, passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in CP (CAA)/45/MB /2024.
3. The Appellant herein was the Respondent in the arbitral proceedings. It was later the Petitioner in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.
4. The Respondent is a Public Limited Company and is a service provider engaged in providing business correspondence services. It was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator and later the Respondent in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act.
5. The subject matter of the dispute before the learned Arbitrator arose out of a Service Provider Agreement (the ‘SPA/Agreement’) dated 09.06.2015. This agreement was amended by way of six addenda dated (i) 17.02.2016, (ii)11.07.2016, (iii)27.07.2016, (iv)18.11.2016, (v)17.01.2017 and (vi) 10.02.2017. Under the Agreement, the Respondent was appointed as the service provider and was to provide the services set out in Schedule I thereto. The Respondent’s scope of activities enumerated in Schedule I was intended to achieve the broader objective of assisting the Appellant in providing loans to rural and unbanked cooperations and building a loan portfolio in its books. The Respondent, thereafter, was required to service these loans on behalf of the Appellant. The Respondent in consideration of the services, was entitled to the fees set out in Clause 9 read with Schedule IV of the Agreement. The Respondent was required to maintain a Security Deposit with the Appellant in the form of a lien over a fixed deposit or a bank guarantee.
6. Disputes arose between the parties with regard to the breach of the Agreement and the lien marked on the Fixed Deposit. Thereafter, the Respondent proceeded to file a petition under Section 9 of the Act before this Court. By an order dated 03.07.2020, this Court appointed the Arbitral Tribunal to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in relation to the Agreement.
7. The Respondent/Claimant filed its Statement of Claim on 30.08.2020. The Appellant filed the Statement of Defence and Counter Claim dated 24.11.2020. The Appellant filed the Rejoinder dated 24.04.2021 to the Reply filed by the Respondent to the Statement of Defence and Counter Claim. The learned Arbitrator thereafter proceeded to pass the Award on 17.01.2023.
8. The present controversy centers around the limitation period for filing the Section 34 petition before the learned Single Judge. The Appellant has claimed that it had received the Arbitral Award on 06.02.2023 as the same had been earlier sent to its erstwhile address. The Appellant has also claimed that it had shifted from its erstwhile address to the new address. The erstwhile address of the Appellant herein is as under:
Reliance Centre, 6th Floor, South Wing, Near Prabhat Colony,
Santacruz(East), Mumbai – 400055.
9. The current address of the Appellant as mentioned in the memorandum of parties of the present appeal is as under:
4th Floor, D-Wing, Trade World~ Kamala Mills Compound. S.B. Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013
10. The petition before the learned Single Judge under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 05.06.
