IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN ON THE 8^th OF DECEMBER, 2025 ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 39 of 2015 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Versus M/S RADHE BUILDERS ……………………………………………………………………………………………

Appearance:

Shri Sunil Jain – Additional Solicitor General with Shri Sanjay Ku, Patel - Advocate for appellants – Union of India.

Shri Anuj Shrivastava – Advocate for the respondent .

.……………………………………………………………………………………………

O R D E R The present appeal has been filed by the Union of India and West Central Railways, Jabalpur being aggrieved by the order dated 24.03.2015 passed in Arbitration Case No.32/2012 by the 9th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur whereby the District Court has rejected the application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on the ground of delay being barred by limitation period without going into merits of the matter. As a result whereof, the award dated 25.11.2011, passed by the sole Arbitrator, a retired Judge of this Court has been confirmed. Against the said order the Union of India is in appeal before this Court.

2. It is argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General Shri Sunil Jain appearing for the appellants that the award in the present case was passed by the Arbitrator on 25.11.2011 and its information was got by the Railways for the first time on 23.05.2012 upon receiving notice for execution of the award. Thereafter, the application under Section 34 was filed before the District Court on 30.07.2012. It is vehemently argued by learned ASG that the starting point of limitation as per Section 34(3) of Act of 1996 is the receipt of arbitral award and since the receipt of the arbitral award by the appellant was after 23.05.2012 which was the date of information of award, therefore the application under Section 34 having been filed on 30.07.2012, was within limitation, as a limitation of 3 months has been provided under Section 34(3) and a further extension/ relaxation by 30 days can be granted as per proviso to Section 34.

3. It is further contended by learned ASG that the District Court has relied upon a postal receipt filed by the present respondents before the District Court which mentions that the award was dispatched by the Arbitrator on 28.11.2011 and therefore, the District Court has refused to believe that the appellants did not get information and copy of the award before 23.05.2012. It is argued by learned ASG that the District Court has considered the matter upon irrelevant considerations by holding that since the registered envelope had 50 gm. weight, therefore it appears that the copy of award was contained in the said envelope and only on this presumption and assumption, it has been held that the copy of award was received by the present appellants in November/ December, 2011 which should not be affirmed by this Court.

4. Per contra, it is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondent by taking this Court through various documents as available in the record of the District Court that the appellant contends that he did not receive copy of Arbitrator's award as the same was dispatched by registered post on 28.11.2011 and the receipt of the registered letter is not denied by the appellants, but they contend that in the envelope of registered letter some irrelevant complaint of corruption in Railways which was of one page only, was received and it was not the case of receipt of award in the said registered envelope. It is contended that the said case of the appellants was discarded by the District Court which is fully valid and proper and no interference should be made by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 37 of Act of 1996.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, the sole question that arises for consideration is that whether the application of the appellant under section 34 of Act of

1996 was within the limitation period of 3 months or the extendable period of 3 months plus 30 days. Admittedly, the award was