Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad has affirmed that in absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner. Brief Facts: The petitioner has approached the court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging an award passed by the arbitrator allowing the claims of the respondent. The Arbitrator by the impugned award has rejected the counter claims of the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present petition without the supporting affidavit, vakalatnama and the award. So, the file was returned under objections, and re-filing was done beyond the period of three months and the additional period of 30 days as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act. The court order dated 02.02.2018 allowed an application seeking condonation of delay of 45 days in re-filing the petition and the delay in re-filing was condoned. The respondent contended that the filing was a non est filing inasmuch as it was without the supporting affidavit, vakalatnama and the impugned award and the next filing was made beyond the time prescribed and therefore the petition challenging the award is not maintainable. However, the petitioner argued that the copy of the award has not been served on the petitioner. Therefore, the time limit under Section 34(3) of the Act would start running after receipt of the award by the petitioner. He states that the award was filed as soon as it was received by the petitioner. Therefore, the instant petition has been filed within the time prescribed. .Observation of the court: The court held that there is no quarrel with the proposition that the time limit under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act would start running from the date on which the party receives the award. Further, the court observed that there is a specific instruction for the Administrative Assistant to the Tribunal to serve a copy of the award. Other than the self-serving statements made across the bar that the copy of the award was not received on 23.08.2017 the Petitioner has not shown any document as to whether it has received the award. The contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal has to show as to when did it served the copy of the award on the petitioner cannot be accepted. In the absence of any positive affirmation on affidavit from the petitioner as to when the award was received, the Court cannot accept the mere ipse dixit of the petitioner that as soon as the award was received it was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the court held that without there being any material from the petitioner as to when the petitioner receives the award. So, the petition has been filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act and is time barred. Finally, the petition was dismissed. Case Title: M/S. INDURE PVT. LTD v. ANEJA CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LTDCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1380 Case Number: O.M.P. (COMM) 49/2018 & I.A. 1565/2018, I.A. 4650/2018, I.A. 4659/2018, I.A. 9614/2018 Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr. Prashant Mehta, Mr. Varun Gupta, Ms. Simran wason, Mr. Akhil G.Kurup, Advocates Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Shubham Shanker Saxena, Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma, Advocates Date of Judgment: 12.12.2024 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Award Is Time-Barred U/S 34(3) Of Arbitration Act Due To Petitioner's Failure To Confirm Award Receipt On Affidavit: Delhi High Court

Soumya Chakrabarti

Tags