Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan has held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is non-maintainable if it is not accompanied by a copy of the impugned award. The court held that the filing of the award is not a mere procedural requirement but a mandatory prerequisite for invoking the court's jurisdiction under Section 34. Brief Facts: The appeal before the Division Bench was based an order passed by the Single Judge. The Single Judge after examining the material on record held that the original petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was non est. The Single Judge noted that the petition was not accompanied by the arbitral award which was sought to be challenged. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner challenged the decision of the Single Judge. Observations by the Division Bench: The Division Bench referred to its decision in Pragati Construction Consultants v. Union of India. The Full Bench in this case noted that a challenge to an arbitral award is maintainable only on limited grounds. The Full Bench held that none of these conditions can be assessed unless the arbitral award itself is placed before the court. It held that the filing of the award along with the application under Section 34 is not a mere procedural formality but an essential requirement. Therefore, it was held that non-filing of the award renders the application non-est in the eyes of the law. The Full Bench noted that: “We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that filing of the copy of the Impugned Award, which is under challenge, is a bare minimum, rather, mandatory requirement for an application under Section 34 of the A&C Act. Further, non-filing of the same would make such an application “non-est” in the eyes of law, thereby, not stopping the period of limitation from running.” Therefore, the court held that the filing of the impugned award is a mandatory requirement for an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. It also held that non-filing of the award renders the application non-est in law and does not stop the period of limitation from running. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal filed against the Single Judge decision. Case Title: Ircon International Limited vs M/S Pnc-Jain Construction Co (Jv)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 332 Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 54/2023, CM APPL. 39274/2024 Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vikas Goel, Mr. Vivek Gupta and Mr. Wanglen Ngangom, Advocates. Date of Judgment: 11.03.2025 Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder or Judgment

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Application U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act Not Maintainable If Not Filed With Copy Of Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers