Delhi District Court
Ravi Arora vs Rup Basant Anr on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DISTRICT JUDGE - 01, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARB No. 84261/2016
CNR No DLCT01-001495 2014.
Ravi Arora
F-5/9, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi. ...............Petitioner
Versus
1 . Rup Basant
A-247, First Floor,
Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi
2. Sh Gulshan Kumar
RB 125, Sector-6,
R K Puram,
New Delhi. ............Respondents
Date of institution : 23.05.2008
Date of decision : 29.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner herein, has filed a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 alongwith an application filed under Section 34 (3) (proviso) seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 1/34
2. The issue of limitation has been directed to be treated as a preliminary issue in terms of the orders dated 20.01.2014 as passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in FAO 305/2011 titled 'Rup Basant v. Ravi Arora'.
3. Before adverting to the legal matrix it is relevant to give a chronology of events/ list of dates which has a material bearing, upon the present issue i.e. the issue of limitation which has been directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to be treated as a preliminary issue as follows:
19.02.1993 The Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 entered into a Collaboration Agreement for construction of a building comprising of basement, ground floor and first floor on the plot of land bearing No. A247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
21.07.1997 Petitioner instituted a petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.
27.08.1999 Vide ex parte order Sh. Gulshan Kumar Dua R/o RB-125, R.K Puram, New Delhi was appointed by the Court as the Sole Arbitrator and the petitioner was restrained from transferring, alienating or parting with possession of the first floor portion of the building i.e. A247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
18.02.2002 The petitioner filed the suit before the District Court u/S 12 of the A&C Act (suit No. 369/2002) seeking setting aside of the appointment of Arbitrator on the ground of partiality. The proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator were stayed.
04.11.2004 The stay order was vacated and the suit was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take the said objections after the passing of the Award.
15.11.2004 Letter issued by the petitioner to the Arbitrator informing him of the vacation of the stay order and further asking him to restrain himself for taking Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 2/34 further arbitral proceedings. The petitioner also disclosed his new address i.e. F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. The said letter was sent under UPC.
26.05.2005 The Ld. Arbitrator issued notice to both the parties to appear before him for 10.06.2005 at RB-125, RBI Colony, Sector-6, R.K.Puram, New Delhi. The Notice was issued to the petitioner on two addresses i.e. at A-247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi address and also at B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.
10.06.2005 As recorded by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, the Notices sent to the petitioner were received back with the following endorsement with respect to A-247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi address "re-
direct to B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-88" and with respect to B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi address "Makaan Chodkar Chale gaye hai".
The Arbitrator directed the service of notice through publication in 'The Statesman' and in 'Rashtriya Sahara'.
13.06.2006 The Ld. Sole Arbitrator passed the Award. 15.06.2006 One copy each of signed copy of the Award sent to both the parties by registered/AD post. The signed copy of the Award was sent to the petitioner at the 'B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110052'. As per the service report, of 19.06.2006, it was reported by the postal authority that the petitioner is not residing at the given address from the past 06 months and that flat is closed.
06.12.2006 The respondent filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking directions for repairs and rectification / removal of defects, wherein, it was stated that the Arbitration Tribunal passed the Award in favour of respondent and against the petitioner.
30.12.2006 Process was received by the petitioner and his counsel appeared and a copy of the application was Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 3/34 furnished to the counsel.
03.01.2007 Counsel for the petitioner appeared and was supplied with copies of the documents and the petition filed u/s 9.
22.01.2007 Copy of the Section 9 application was once again supplied to counsel for the petitioner herein.
09.04.2007 Reply to the application under Section 9 filed by the petitioner.
02.07.2007 An execution petition was filed seeking enforcement of the Arbitral Award dated 13.06.2006.
18.07.2007 Process for appearance in execution petition was received by the petitioner.
03.08.2007 Petitioner herein appeared before the Court in the execution petition through his counsel.
14.03.2008 Petitioner filed objections and challenged the jurisdiction of the executing court.
23.05.2008 Petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed by the petitioner alongwith an application seeking condonation of delay and stay of the execution proceedings.
19.01.2011 The Court of Ld. ADJ set aside the Award and allowed the petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
20.01.2014 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the order dated 19.01.2011 with directions to treat the issue of limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction as preliminary issues.
4. The present petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the Petitioner seeking setting aside of the award dated 13.06.2006 made by Sh. Gulshan Kumar, the Ld. Arbitrator on 23.05.2008, to which a reply has been filed by Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 4/34 respondent No.1 on 31.01.2009, taking the ground that the petition is barred by limitation since against the award dated 13.06.2006 the period of limitation expired on 15.06.2006.
5. The petitioner herein, on 23.05.2008 has filed an application under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the said application filed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it has been stated that the application is being filed by way of abundant caution as the petitioner has not received the Award dated 13.03.2006 till date from the Ld. Arbitrator. It has further been stated that a copy of Award was given to counsel for judgment debtor on 24.01.2008 by the Counsel for the decree holder and it has been submitted that there has been no delay in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In the present application, it has been put forward that the petitioner vide letter dated 15.11.2004 has informed the Ld. Arbitrator about the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.11.2004 and has requested him to withdraw in view of the objections taken by the petitioner with regard to his appointment and not to continue with the arbitration proceedings. It is further stated that vide letter dated 15.11.2004, the current address of the petitioner was stated who had shifted from his place of residence at Shalimar Bagh to Vasant Vihar. It has further been stated in the said application that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has sent the notices at the petitioner's last address, who was very well aware that the petitioner has changed his address and shifted to F-5/9, Vasant Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 5/34 Vihar, New Delhi. It has further been stated that it was in the knowledge of respondent No.1 that the petitioner was never staying at A-247, First Floor, Shivalik and the said premises were lying locked. It has further been stated that the petitioner had offered respondent No.2 to use the first floor of A- 247, Shivalik for conducting arbitration proceedings which also took place at the said address on 02.03.2002. It is thus, submitted that both respondent No.1 and No.2 knew that the petitioner is not residing at the aforesaid addresses and had shifted to Vasant Vihar and despite the same the notices have been issued at his old address and who was thereafter, proceeded ex parte. It is further submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the conduct of the arbitration proceedings since he never received any notice from respondent No.2 and no copy of the award has been given to the petitioner by respondent No.2 till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been served with summons at his Vasant Vihar address of the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. It is further submitted that petitioner have received summons on 30.07.2007 of the execution proceedings at the Vasant Vihar address only and in the said proceedings a copy of the said Award was given to counsel for the judgment debtor on 24.01.2008 by the counsel for the decree holder. It is further submitted that under legal advise, he has filed the objections questioning the jurisdiction of executing Court and the counsel never advised filing of the separate petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
7. It is in a nutshell, it is thus submitted that the petitioner has not received the Award from Ld. Arbitrator till date as required under Section 31 (5) of the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 6/34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the period of limitation has yet not started to run. It is thus submitted that there has been a delay of 29 days in filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 since the Award was received by the counsel for the petitioner on 24.01.2008 and the time for filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ended on 23.04.2008.
8. A reply to the application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by respondent No.1. In the said reply, it has been stated that the Ld. Arbitrator had dispatched the copy of the Award to the petitioner on 15.06.2006 on the given and usual address available on record of the Arbitrator and that the petitioner has not submitted any application seeking change of address with the Ld. Arbitrator. It is further submitted that the petitioner had the knowledge of passing of the Award consequent upon application filed by respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which admittedly have been received by the petitioner on 30.12.2006. It is further submitted that the petitioner received the summons of the execution petition on 18.07.2007 and 30.07.2007, which was filed in respect of the arbitral award dated 13.06.2006. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed his objections before the executing Court after participating in the execution proceedings. It is further submitted that the limitation period for filing the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stood expired in any case on 31.10.2006 i.e. four months from the date of the dispatch of the Award dated 13.06.2006. It is also submitted that petitioner received notice of Section 9 application on 13.12.2006 and also received notice of the execution petition on 30.11.2007 Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 7/34 and has been participating the execution petition regularly since 03.08.2007. It is thus, submitted that the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 be dismissed since the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation.
ANYALSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. It is an undisputed factual position that vide order dated 27.08.1999, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court of Ms. Rekha Sharma, Ld. ADJ (as then her Lordship was). Vide the aforesaid order, the Ld. ADJ in a petition filed under Section 11 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 appointed the nominee of the petitioner as the Sole Arbitrator. It is also an admitted position that petitioner herein had appeared before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator on 24.11.2001 and has lodged his objection of the appointment of the Sole Arbitrator. The objections were duly noted in the record of proceedings held on 24.11.2001, 01.12.2001, 08.12.2001. As recorded in the proceedings of 15.12.2001 held by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, an application was preferred by the petitioner herein before the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to keep the proceedings in abeyance to which a reply was filed by the respondent herein. The Ld. Sole arbitrator as recorded in the proceeding sheet of the proceedings held on 12.01.2002 has disclosed in writing as follows "I have communicated and still communicates to Sh. Ravi Arora that I am a relative of wife of plaintiff and was working with plaintiff in RBI which may be noted by the respondent". It is also an admitted position that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, vide the proceedings held on 09.02.2002, had informed the parties that he is going to vacate the present Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 8/34 place of arbitration i.e. RB-125, Sector 6, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and the proceedings were directed to be held at A-247 (First Floor), Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi (Flat owned by the petitioner herein). In the year 2002, a suit was filed by the petitioner before the District Courts, Tis Hazari Courts u/s 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the setting aside the appointment of the Arbitrator and the proceedings before the Ld. Arbitrator was stayed vide order dated 18.02.2002. It is also an admitted position that vide order dated 04.11.2004, the suit was dismissed holding that the application is not maintainable and also that the application should have been moved before the Ld. Arbitrator and thereafter to challenge the award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
10. The petitioner herein has placed on record the U.P.C. receipt w.r.t. the issuance of letter dated 15.11.2004 and it is submitted that vide letter dated 15.11.2004, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was informed that the suit as filed by the petitioner stands dismissed and also that in view of the objections taken by the petitioner, the Ld. Arbitrator should not continue with the arbitration proceedings.
11. Consequent upon the orders dated 04.11.2004 as recorded vide proceedings sheet dated 10.02.2005, the Ld. Sole Arbitration received a letter dated 25.01.2005 from the Counsel for the respondent herein requesting resumption of proceedings. Vide notices issued on 26.05.2005, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator issued notice to the petitioner at the following addresses:
a) B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110052.
b) A-247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 9/34
12. The service report with respect to the service of notice at the Shalimar Bagh address reads as under :
'Makaan chod kar chala gaya hai'.
13. The service report with respect to the service of notice at Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi address reads as under :
'Makaan chod kar chala gaya hai'. Redirect to B W 54 B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110088.
14. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator thereafter directed the service of the petitioner herein, through publication vide order dated 10.06.2005 which was published in the two newspapers i.e. 'The Statesman' and 'Rashtriya Sahara' on 15.06.2005. Thereafter, the Arbitrator proceeded the petitioner herein ex parte and passed an ex parte award on 13.06.2006. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator sent a signed copy of the Award to the petitioner herein at the following address on 15.06.2006 :
B/W-54B, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi.
15. The signed copy of the Award sent to the petitioner herein at the mentioned address in the memo of parties filed before the arbitrator i.e. BW-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 was returned unserved on the ground that in the said flat no body was staying from the past 06 months and the house was found to be locked. It is worth noting that the signed copy of the award was not sent to the petitioner at his second address i.e. A-247, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi at which address as per the service report received at the time of recommencement of the arbitral proceedings the petitioner was reported to have left the said house and notices were re- directed to B W 54 B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi -110088.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 10/34
16. It is the contention of the petitioner that consequent upon the dismissal of the suit filed under Section 12 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he had issued letter dated 15.11.2004, under postal certificate to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator requesting him to withdraw from the case and has further requested him not to continue with the arbitration proceedings. On the aforesaid grounds, it is thus the submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that till date he has not been served with a copy of the Award and neither has he been served any notice issued by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator at his Vasant Vihar address intimating him about the re-commencement of the arbitral proceedings.
17. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator had re-commenced the arbitral proceedings after giving due notices to the petitioner and has re-commenced the arbitral proceedings after serving the petitioner herein through publication which was carried out in two leading newspapers. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the Award was sent at the residential address of the petitioner, who had at no point of time intimated the Ld. Sole Arbitrator about the change of his address. It is thus, submitted that in view of Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, due service of notices not only re-commencing the arbitral proceedings but also of the arbitral award has been effected upon the petitioner and the application seeking condonation of delay is thus liable to be dismissed which has been filed beyond the statutory period of time since the signed copy of the award dt 13.06.2006 is deemed to have been served upon the petitioner on 15.06.2006.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 11/34
18. Before adverting to analyse the factual matrix of the present case, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act w.r.t the delivery of signed copy of the award and the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as follows:
"2 (h): "party" means a party to an arbitration agreement".
"3. Receipt of written communications.-
(1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties,-
(a) any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee personally or at his place of business, habitual residence or mailing address, and
(b) if none of the places referred to in clause (a) can be found after making a reasonable inquiry, a written communication is deemed to have been received if it is sent to the addressee's last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address by registered letter or by any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver it.
(2) The communication is deemed to have been received on the day it is so delivered.
(3) This section does not apply to written communications in respect of proceedings of any judicial Authority."
"31. Form and contents of arbitral award.-
(1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.
(2) ............
(3) ..........
(4) ...........
(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party."
19. At this stage, the Court also takes note of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which reads as under:-
Section 34 Application for setting aside arbitral award :
(1) --------
(2) ---------
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 12/34 (2A) -------
(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
"Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may be entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."
20. It has been held by the Hon'ble Superior Courts that the delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to a party is not a mere formality but confers a substantive right in its favour to assail the award. The non-exercise of such substantive right within the statutory period has the effect of extinguishing the same and the award attaining finality. The settled legal position is clear that the limitation provided under Section 34(3) commences only from the date when a signed copy of the award is received by the party seeking to assail the award. The use of words 'but not thereafter' in the proviso to Section 34 of the A&C Act being couched in negative, shows that the provision is mandatory in nature and leaves no discretion with the Court to condone delay beyond 30 days after the expiry of statutory period of 3 months from the date of receiving a signed copy of the award.
21. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner had remained unrepresented post the revival of the arbitral proceedings and was served through publication consequent upon the notices issued at the two addresses of the petitioner herein intimating revival were returned unserved Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 13/34 on the ground "Makaan chod kar chala gaya hai". Thus, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the award has been passed in the absence of the petitioner. However since the suit as filed by the petitioner stood dismissed vide order dt 04.11.2004, it was the incumbent duty of the petitioner to approach the Ld Sole Arbitrator since there was no impediment upon the Ld Sole Arbitrator to proceed with the arbitration consequent upon the order whereby stay of proceedings was vacated.
22. Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stipulates that a signed copy of the award must be delivered to the parties however, it does not provide any mode or manner of delivery. Section 34(3), which stipulates the limitation period for filing objections against the award, uses the expression 'received' with regard to the time from which the limitation period would commence.
23. Section 3(1) (b) of the Act, which is generally about the service of written communications under Part I of the Act, refers to the mode of service. It provides for deemed service if the written communication is sent by a registered letter or any other means which provides a record of the attempt to deliver the communication, to the addressee's last known place of business, habitual residence or mailing address. This provision refers to written communications and does not categorically mention 'arbitral award'. Arbitral awards are delivered by the arbitrators to the parties under Section 31(5) by way of a written communication. The said written communication is in the form of a cover letter sent along with the arbitral award, to effect 'delivery' under Section 31(5). In this manner, Section 3 would cover written communications via which the arbitral awards are 'delivered' to the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 14/34 parties under Section 31(5). It cannot be ignored that Section 31(1)(b) applies to Part I of the Act, of which Section 31 and 34 are also part, and excluding applicability of Section 3 to the delivery of arbitral awards under Section 31 would be unjustified.
24. It bears noting that if Section 3 were to not apply to Section 31(5), then there would be a procedural gap in the Act inasmuch as 'delivery' of arbitral award could never be deemed, even if a party was deliberately avoiding 'receiving' the award, in order to defer the commencement of limitation period to challenge the same under Section 34 or otherwise. In such a situation, there could never be compliance of Section 31(5), unless there was actual physical proof of delivery of the award, due to which the next stage in the arbitral process i.e., raising of objections under Section 34, if any could never be reached.
25. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd v. Navigant Technologies Pvt Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 157, the Supreme Court has emphasised the legal mandate of establishing 'delivery' of the arbitral award to the parties under Section 31(5) of the Act, before rights under Section 34(3) could be curtailed, on the ground of delay. The relevant extract from the judgment highlighting the sanctity of 'delivery' of the arbitral award is as under:-
(x) In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, a three-
Judge Bench of this Court held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 would commence only after a valid delivery of the award takes place under Section 31(5) of the Act. In para 8, it was held as under:
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 15/34 "The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) of Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of substance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passed that the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 31 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral award to the party, to be effective, has to be 'received' by the party. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the party of the award sets in motion several periods of limitation such as an application for correction and interpretation of an award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period of limitation which would be calculated from that date, the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in the arbitral proceedings."
(emphasis supplied)
26. However, in Dakshin Haryana Vitran (Supra), the issue of deemed delivery of the arbitral award was not the matter before the court, for it to examine the applicability of Section 3 of the Act to the same. The court had been called upon to examine whether the limitation period for filing the objections under Section 34 could be reckoned from a later date i.e., when a signed copy of the award, along with minority award, was delivered to the petitioner and not from an earlier date i.e., when majority award was signed but a copy thereof was not delivered to the parties, to await the signing of the minority opinion. The court held that mere signing of the majority award, without delivery of copy of the same to the parties, would not meet the requirement of Section 31(5) of the Act.
27. This court has the benefit of the authoritative pronouncement by Supreme Court in Dakshin Haryana Vitran (Supra) and an occasion to apply the same Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 16/34 to the facts of this case, where an additional dimension of deemed delivery of arbitral award under Section 3 has arisen.
28. As has been discussed above, if deemed delivery of award is not available by virtue of Section 3(1)(b), it may lead to an abuse of process of law, by a party that wishes to de facto enlarge the limitation period under Section 34, by not letting the limitation period to commence by delaying receiving of the award through clever means.
29. Thus, from the aforesaid, delivery of the arbitral award u/s 31(5) can be presumed by the Court by applying Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, it cannot be lost sight of that since delivery of the arbitral award is a substantive right of the parties to the arbitration, it cannot be undermined by a cavalier approach. A party claiming deemed service u/s 31(5) r.w. Section 3(1)(b) must establish beyond doubt that there is no reason to assume that the service could not have been effected, despite complying with the conditions prescribed u/s 3(1)(b).
30. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record original U.P.C. receipt dated 15.11.2004 thereby disclosing that the letter dated 15.11.2004 was dispatched to the Sole Arbitrator. In the said postal certificate, the address of the petitioner at 5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi is clearly mentioned. By placing on record the aforesaid postal certificate, the presumption u/s 114 of the Indian Evidence Act gets attracted which reads as under:-
"114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 17/34 had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. The Court may presume-
(f) That the common course of business has been followed in particular cases."
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Samittri Devi and Anr. vs. Sampuran Singh and Anr., 2011 AIR SC 680 vide para 29 held as follows:
"29: Thus, it will all depend on the facts of each case whether the presumption of service of a notice sent under postal certificate should be drawn. It is true that as observed by the Privy Council in its abovereferred judgment, the presumption would apply with greater force to letters which are sent by registered post, yet, when facts so justify, such a presumption is expected to be drawn even in the case of a letter sent under postal certificate."
32. The facts and circumstances of the present case do not permit the application of the presumption to the effect that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator was delivered with a copy of letter dated 15.11.2004 allegedly sent by the petitioner under postal certificate. In the present case, the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit challenging the Sole Arbitrator which was dismissed on 04.11.2004 and the order upon the stay of proceedings stood vacated. Looking into the relation of the parties which were loggerheads, it would be unreasonable to believe that the petitioner would have instead of sending the letter through registered post where the record of delivery can be confirmed, would have issued the letter under postal certificate wherein no such record of delivery is maintained. The conduct of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator who has meticulously maintained his arbitral record in a duly paginated register, do not reflect any such letter having been received by the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 18/34 Ld. Sole Arbitrator and in fact, it clearly finds mentioned in the said register that he received a letter from the Counsel for the respondent herein requesting resumption of arbitral proceedings. Further conduct of the Ld. Sole Arbitrator also belies that he received the alleged letter issued by the respondent and sent under postal certificate dated 15.11.2004. Not only the Ld. Sole Arbitrator issued notices upon the petitioner herein at both the addresses available on record but had also ensured the publication of the notices in two newspapers i.e. Statesman and Rashtriya Sahara having circulation at Delhi. Further, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator had duly delivered a signed copy of the award dated 13.06.2006 to the petitioner herein at his residential address at Shalimar Bagh which was returned unserved to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator with the remarks "Is flat mein pichle kaafi dino se (kareeb 6 mah se) koi nahi rehta hai, makaan band hai atteh vapis".
33. The word delivery of an award as used in Section 31(5) of the Act cannot be interpreted in a pedantic manner as to defeat the quintessential feature of the enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which is speedy and time bound disposal of the arbitration related cases.
34. The intent of the petitioner right from the very beginning commencing w.e.f. the filing of the petition u/s 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been not to participate and to avoid the service of notices in the Court who had been proceeded ex parte before the Court of Ld. ADJ whereby the Sole Arbitrator was appointed. Even after the dismissal of the suit filed to challenge the Arbitrator, vide order dated 04.11.2004, the petitioner have not bothered to contact the Ld. Sole Arbitrator nor they have tried to ascertain the fate of the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 19/34 w.e.f. 04.11.2004 who was very well aware of the address of the Learned sole arbitrator. Even in the alleged letter dated 15.11.2004, the petitioner has not bothered to intimate the Ld. Sole Arbitrator that instead of the address of Shalimar Bagh, his new address be substituted and notices be issued at his new address i.e. 5/9, Vasant Vihar, Delhi. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator duly delivered the signed copy of the arbitral award at the residential address of the petitioner last known i.e. Shalimar Bagh, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by registered post which in terms of the provisions of Section 3(2) is deemed to have been received by the petitioner herein on the day of its attempted delivery i.e.- 15.06.2006. Even the conduct of the petitioner post the pronouncement of the arbitration award has been grossly negligent as is evident from the following proceedings:
Proceedings u/S 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
35. The petitioner after the pronouncement of the award had filed a petition u/s 9 on 07.12.2006. In the said petition the respondent has impleaded the Petitioner at the following address :
BW-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.
36. Perusal of the service report shows that initially the summons/notice of the said petition was issued at the aforesaid address. However as per the service report dt 23.12.2006 shows that the aforesaid address i.e. BW-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 was found locked and the phone number of the petitioner was written at the inner door and after the process server communicated with the petitioner and the new address of the petitioner was informed to the process server and the petitioner was served at the new Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 20/34 address intimated to the process server i.e. F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi on 30.12.2006. The Respondent in para 2 of the said petition has been clearly stated that the Arbitral Tribunal has given its award on 13.06.2006.The petitioner in his reply dt 09.04.2007 to the application u/s 9 (vide para 2) has stated that he is not aware of any arbitration proceedings and has stated that no notice of arbitration proceedings was ever received by the petitioner and the petitioner has not knowledge about any orders passed in the Arbitral proceedings. Alongwith the said reply the petitioner had submitted his affidavit stating that he is resident of 5/9, Vasant Vihar, Delhi.
Thus even in the affidavit of the Petitioner, cleverly the full address of the Petitioner was not disclosed which speak volumes about the conduct of the Petitioner. The applicant/respondent thereafter filed the documents on 25.09.2007 including copy of the Arbitral award dt 13.06.2006 as received by the respondent/applicant, a copy of which was supplied to the proxy Counsel for petitioner herein on 25.09.2007. The Petitioner even after the receipt of the copy of the award did not bother to either obtain a certified copy of the award nor had attempted to seek a copy of the same from the learned sole arbitrator.
Proceedings filed u/s 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on 02.07.2007 for the enforcement of the arbitral award dated 13.06.2006.
37. The decree holder had mentioned the following addresses of the petitioner herein as follows:
(a) BW-54B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 &
(b) F-4/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 21/34
38. The notice of the execution petition was served upon the petitioner at the following address: F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, Delhi on 18.07.2007.
39. On 03.08.2007, Counsel for the petitioner/JD appeared. At no point of time, the JD had submitted that he had not been supplied with the copy of the execution petition or arbitral award. On 24.01.2008, Counsel for the JD sought time to file objections which were filed on 14.03.2008 contending that the execution petition seeking the enforcement of the consolidated award can be executed either with the leave of the Court and stating that the recovery of money shall be claimed by another execution petition and also that the Court lacks jurisdiction to execute the award.
40. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be attracted in the present case merely by placing on record letter dated 15.11.2004 sent under postal certificate as allegedly issued by the petitioner herein to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. Had their been any bonafide in the contention of the petitioner upon having been aware of the passing of an arbitral award by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator which fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 30.12.2006 on which date the copy of the Section 9 Petition was served upon the Petitioner to which a reply was filed by the Petitioner on 09.04.2007, the petitioner would have immediately written to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to supply him a copy of a duly signed arbitration award. The Petitioner in any case was supplied with the documents in the Section 9 Petition on 25.09.2007 and the arbitral award dated 13.06.2006 formed part of the said documents. The petitioner who thereafter was duly served and supplied with a copy of the notice of the execution petition on 18.07.2007 of which the arbitral award formed a part Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 22/34 in any case would have written to the Ld. Sole Arbitrator to supply him a copy the signed copy of the arbitral award dated 13.06.2006. No steps at all were taken by the petitioner right w.e.f 30.12.2006 till the filing of the present petition who despite the dismissal of his suit way back on 04.11.2004 feigned ignorance and took no steps to ascertain the fate of the arbitral proceedings.
41. In the present petition filed under Section 34, a ground has been taken by the petitioner that he has not been supplied with a copy of the execution petition and the documents accompanying it which is clearly belied from the orders passed in the execution petition wherein at no point of time, any objection had been taken by the counsel for the petitioner that he has not been supplied with the copy of the execution petition or the documents accompanying it. The sheet anchor of the present case of the petitioner is the letter dated 15.11.2004 and the UPC receipt to which even the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is not applicable and only a presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable and even that presumption with respect to delivery of the aforesaid letter in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not applicable. Moreover the petitioner during the course of the present proceedings have filed on record the sale deed pertaining to property bearing no F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi which sale deed is dt 20.01.2006. In the said sale deed the petitioner had been shown to be a resident of F-4/7, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057. Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner was a resident of F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi as on the date of the UPC receipt i.e. 15.11.2004 and the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 23/34 petitioner has not explained anywhere the date from which the petitioner started to reside in property bearing no F-5/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
42. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the ex-parte award dated 13.06.2006 was delivered by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator vide registered AD upon the petitioner on 15.06.2006 the same would constitutes deemed service/receipt at the Shalimar Bagh address in accordance with Section 3 of the Act which prescribes that any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee at the place of business/habitual residence/mailing address and which was the last known address of the petitioner available with the arbitrator. Thus, once a signed copy of the award was dispatched by the Ld. Arbitrator to the parties at their last known place of business/habitual residence/mailing address which can be demonstrated by providing "A record of the attempt to deliver it", the same would be sufficient to draw an inference that they are deemed to have been served which requirement in the present case was duly fulfilled as the learned sole arbitrator had duly sent the signed copy of the award at the residential address of the Petitioner as was available on record and had demonstrated the attempt to deliver the same at the said address.
43. The arbitral tribunal is not expected to physically serve/deliver the arbitral award upon the petitioners, particularly, when despite the restoration of the arbitral proceedings, they have chosen to keep away from the same. In case, the submission of the petitioner is accepted that in the present case, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act does not commence for making an application under Section 34(1) for setting the award as accepted, the same keeping in view the factual position would Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 24/34 give a license to dishonest litigants to adopt all kind of dilatory tactics to evade receiving a signed copy of the award and then claiming that the same has not been delivered and thus, the period of limitation has not commenced. A plain reading of Section 34(3) of the 1996 Act shows that an application for setting aside an award may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making the application has received the arbitral award. Thus in the present case, deemed delivery of the award took place on 15.06.2006. The Petitioner has not been able to show in fact the letter dated 15.11.2006 was received by the Ld sole arbitrator and the documents filed by the petitioner does not permit such a presumption being drawn. The Petitioner has not been able to show any bonafides in his favour who despite deemed service of the award, service of section 9 Petition and service of the execution petition (together with copy of the award) did not at any point of time made any attempt to obtain a copy of the arbitral award and has simply chosen a convenient date i.e 24.01.2008 on which date a copy of the award has been declared to have been received by the petitioner in the execution case which too is contrary to the record of the execution petition which goes to show that at no point of time any objection was raised by the counsel for the JD to the effect that he has not been supplied with complete documents including the copy of the Arbitral award dt 13.06.2006. All throughout in the execution proceedings time has been sought by Ld Counsel for the JD who on the first date in the matter listed on 03.08.2007 sought adjournment for taking appropriate steps and as recorded vide order dt 24.01.2008 sought few days time for filing objections and the same were only filed on 14.03.2008.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 25/34
44. Ld Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support in his contentions to the effect that the period of limitation has not yet begun to run since the signed copy of the award has not been delivered to the petitioner:
a) State of Maharasthra Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (4) SCC 616.
In the aforesaid matter the copy of the award was not given to the petitioner since he failed to pay the cost of arbitration. Since, no signed copy of the award was delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside, hence, the Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon the judgment rendered in the matter of Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, 2005 (3) Scale and it was held that the limitation prescribed under 34 (3) of the Act would start running from the date of a signed copy of the award is delivered to/ received by the party making the application for setting it aside under Section 34 (1) of the Act and it was also held that if the law prescribed a copy of the award / order is to be communicated, delivered, dispatched, forwarded, rendered or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way and in case, the law also sets a period of limitation for challenging the order / award in question by the aggrieved party, the the period of limitation can only commence from the date on which the order / award was received by the party concerned in the manner prescribed by the law. The facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case since in the present matter, the signed copy of the award was duly sent / delivered/ received by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator by registered post at the last known place of residence of the petitioner.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 26/34
b) Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, 2005 (3) Scale. In the said matter, copy of the award was delivered in the office of General Manager, Southern Railway which was not received by the Chief Engineer who had signed the agreement on behalf of Union of India, in the peculiar set of facts of the said case it was held that there has been no due delivery of the award within the meaning of Section 31 (5) of the Act. In the present matter, the signed copy of the award was duly sent by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator by registered post at the last known place of residence of the petitioner and accordingly, the award is deemed to have been received by the petitioner.
c) Benarsi Krishna Committee Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496. In the said matter, the copy of the signed award was not delivered to the party itself but was received by the counsel for the respective parties and placing reliance upon Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, 2005 (3) Scale and State of Maharashtra Vs. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2011 (4) SCC 616, it was held that there has been no proper compliance with Section 31 (5) of the Act. In the present matter, the signed copy of the award was duly sent by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator by registered post at the last known place of residence of the petitioner and accordingly, the award is deemed to have been received by the petitioner.
d) J.S.C. Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. H.D.B. Financial Services, Manu/MH/0559/2018. In the said case, there had been infirmities in the service of the award since the record maintained by the Arbitrator did not reflect that the Arbitrator forwarded the signed copy of the award to the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 27/34 parties and accordingly it was held that there has been no due compliance with the requirements of Section 31 (5) of the Act and reliance was placed upon Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, 2005 (3) Scale and Benarsi Krishna Committee Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496. The facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable in the present matter since in the present matter the Arbitral record shows the presence of the returned signed copy of the award which has been sent at the registered address of the petitioner.
e) Monika Oli Vs. M/s. CL Educate Ltd., OMP (Comm) 370/2022. In the said matter the tracking report showed that the Arbitral Award was not delivered to Monika Oli but to one Shrey Baxi which was accordingly held to be not the proper compliance with the requirements of Section 31 (5) of the Act. The facts of the said case are also distinguishable from the facts of the present case since in the present matter, the signed copy of the award was duly sent by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator by registered post at the last known place of residence of the petitioner and accordingly, the award is deemed to have been received by the petitioner.
f) Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, Department of Ports, Govt. of India Vs. ERNST & Young Pvt. Ltd., OMP (Comm) No.377/2018. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the peculiar set of facts taking note that an addendum to award was sent at a later date concluded that the period of limitation would commence from the date of the delivery of the addendum. In the present case, the period of limitation would Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 28/34 commence from the date of the delivery of the signed copy of the Arbitral Award i.e. 15.06.2006 i.e. the date on which the signed copy of the award was deemed to have been received by the petitioner.
g) Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. Vs. HOSMAC Projects Division of Hosmac India Pvt. Ltd., FAO (OS) (Comm) No.326/2019, where in it was held that the delivery of the award has to be made on the party to the agreement which service could not be demonstrated upon Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. In the present case, the Ld. Sole Arbitrator has duly sent a signed copy of the award upon the petitioner who was a party in the Arbitration Agreement.
h) In A. G. Aero Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tata Capital Financial Service Ltd., 2018 SCC online Del 10825, the facts of which are similar to the present matter, it was held by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court as follows:
"22. On a cumulative reading of Section 34 (3) with Section 31(5) of the Act, delivery of a copy of the award by the Tribunal and the receipt of the same by the parties is an important stage in the arbitral proceedings and must be adhered to as once the said stage is crossed, it sets into motion several periods of limitation, as contemplated in the Act [Refer: UOI vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractor (2005) 4 SCC 239)]. But at the same time, the word "delivery" used in Section 31(5) of the Act cannot be interpreted in a pedantic manner as to defeat the quintessential feature of the enactment, which is speedy and time bound disposal of arbitration related cases.
"23. We are of the opinion that the distinction sought to be drawn by learned counsel for the appellants between the word, "delivered" used in Section 31(5) vis-à-vis the word "received"
used in Section 34(3) of the Act, cannot invite such a punctilious interpretation as to frustrate the very intent and purpose of the Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 29/34 Statute by a party like the appellants No.2 to 4 before us, who have right from the very beginning, been adopting all kinds of dilatory tactics to avoid service in the arbitral proceedings and on passing of an ex-parte award, have evaded delivery/receipt of the award. Yet, in the same breath, they keep on insisting that the period of limitation available for instituting a petition under Section 34 of the Act in respect of the award, cannot be stated to have commenced till a signed copy thereof is actually delivered on them.
24. In a case like the present one, where an ex-parte award was published by the Arbitral Tribunal on conclusion of the arbitral proceedings, the only manner in which the signed copy of the same could have been delivered/served on the appellants, was through post/courier. For the purpose of service, Section 3 of the Act prescribes that any written communication is deemed to have been received if it is delivered to the addressee at the place of business/habitual residence/mailing address. Once the signed copy of the award was dispatched by the learned Arbitrator to the parties at their last known place of business/habitual residence/mailing address, which can be demonstrated by providing "a record of the attempt to deliver it", the same would be sufficient to draw an inference that they are deemed to have been served. It is not as if the Arbitral Tribunal was expected to physically serve/deliver the arbitral award on the appellants, particularly, when they elected to keep away from the arbitral proceedings, resulting in passing of an ex-parte award.
25. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the presumption arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would come into play. There is sufficient material on record to establish that several attempts were made to deliver the signed copy of the arbitral award on the appellants No.2 to 4 but each time, the said envelopes were returned with the remarks, "locked", "unclaimed" and closed premises". Nor have the appellants been able to place anything before the learned Single Judge or for that matter, before this Court to rebut the presumption under the provisions of Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 30/34 Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, with regard to service of the award on them.
26. In our view, if the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants No.2 to 4 that till a signed copy of the arbitral award is delivered on a party, the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 does not commence for making an application under Section 34(1) for setting aside the award, is accepted without looking at the fact situation in a given case, it will give a licence to dishonest litigants to adopt all kinds of devious tactics to evade receiving a signed copy of the award and then claiming that the same was not "delivered" and therefore, the period of limitation cannot commence for filing a petition under Section 34(3) of the Act. We find merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that if such a plea is accepted, then no beneficiary under an award would ever be able to reap its fruits by applying for its execution and enforcement.
27. A party in whose favour an award has been passed, cannot be divested of its precious rights on a dishonest plea taken by the opponent that he could not take recourse to Section 34(1) of the Act due to non-delivery of a signed copy of the award, when there is sufficient material on the record to demonstrate deliberate attempts to evade receipt of the same. One would be loath to give such a literal interpretation to the word, "delivery" used in Section 31(5) of the Act, as it would result in nullifying the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act and thereby frustrate the very object sought to be achieved by the enactment, whose liet motif is expeditious disposal. The primary object of the said provision is to fast track the legal process and ensure that the parties desirous of filing objections against an arbitral award, move with alacrity to approach a judicial forum and not that they resort to deceitful means to evade service and then take a plea of non-delivery of a signed copy of the award to urge that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the award, had not commenced.
28. We are of the firm view that in the present case, unclaimed service amounts to good service and should be treated as deemed Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 31/34 service of the arbitral award on the appellants, as it has been amply demonstrated that the signed copy of the award had been dispatched by the learned Arbitrator at the correct addresses of the parties. The postal authorities had attempted to deliver the envelopes enclosing the signed copy of the award at the addresses of the appellants No.2 to 4, as available with the learned Arbitrator, which happen to be the same addresses as furnished in the memo of parties of the execution petition on which they were duly served with the court summons. Once the learned Arbitrator had dispatched the signed award in envelopes by speed post to the appellants No.2 to 4 and they were returned with the endorsements, "locked", "unclaimed" and closed premises", deemed service ought to be presumed against them. Therefore, the principles incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be safely applied in the instant case. The appellants No.2 to 4 have miserably failed to discharge the onus cast on them of proving that the envelopes containing the signed copy of the award had not been served on them and that they could not be held responsible for the said non-service in any manner. In the absence of any such rebuttal, the benefit shall naturally go to the respondent/Decree Holder. The appellants No.2 to 4 have none other to blame except for themselves for failing to take timely steps to file objections to the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act."
45. The Ratio of the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Besides the aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of M/s. Rainbow Electric Supply Company Vs. North Delhi Power Ltd. have given due weight-age to the factum of the supply of the copy of the Arbitral Award during execution proceedings and vide para 15 & 16, it has been held as follows:-
"15. It is not in dispute that both the petitions under Section 34 of the Act were filed on 10 th September, 2012 about 4 ½ Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 32/34 years after the passing of the awards and about 6 months after the judgment debtors were served in Execution petitions and received a copy of the Arbitral Award. Hence, despite knowledge of the Arbitral Award, the judgment debtor took no steps to file objections under Section 34 of the Act within the mandatory and statutory period, despite entering appearance in the execution proceedings in March, 2012.
16. The plea that the original signed award had not been received by the judgment debtor is also of no consequences, specifically in view that postal receipt and acknowledgment were not controverted by the petitioner. In any event, after it was served in the Execution Proceedings, it was for the judgment debtor to take steps to obtain an original signed copy of the award, inter alia, by writing to the Arbitrator. Admittedly, no such steps have been taken till date.
46. Further, in the matter of National Highways Authority of India Vs. M/s.
Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd., OMP 310/2011, vide para 17 the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:-
"17. In the present case at no stage did the NHAI inform the Arbitral Tribunal that the address of NHAI as appearing in the memo of parties or the cause tile in the arbitral proceedings was not the address to which the copies of the award or the amended Award had to be sent. Absent such a specific communication by the NHAI to the Arbitral Tribunal, the dispatch of the certified copy of the Award as well as of the amended award by the Arbitral Award to the NHAI at its corporate office at New Delhi by registered post was sufficient compliance with the requirements of both Sections 31 (5) as well as 34 (3) of the Act. It is not possible to accept the contention of Learned Senior Counsel for NHAI that for the purpose of Section 34 (3) of the Act the Limitation would begin to run only from the date on which the project office of the NHAI received a copy of amended Award dated 1st September, 2010. As explained hereinbefore, the amended Award dated 09th September, 2010 was received Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 33/34 in Delhi office on 4th October, 2010 itself and that would be the relevant date for the purpose of commencement of limitation under Section 34 (3) of the Act.
47. Thus in view of the ratio of the judgments passed in the matter of A G Agro Vision, Rainbow Electricity Supply Company and also in National Highway Authority of India (Supra), the preliminary issue of limitation is decided against the petitioner and consequently the application seeking condonation of delay filed u/s 34 (3) r/w Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed. Consequent upon the decision upon the preliminary issue of limitation, the application filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 also stands dismissed.
48. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Sachin Sood)
SACHIN
SOOD
Digitally signed by
SACHIN SOOD
Date: 2025.11.29
15:22:17 +0530
on 29.11.2025 DJ-01 (Central)
THC, Delhi.
Arb No 84261/2016 Ravi Arora Vs Rup Basant Page no 34/34