Delivering Arbitral Award To Power Of Attorney Holder Satisfies Requirement Of 'Delivery' U/S 31(5) Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

Facts

Disputes arose between the parties in relation to the Collaboration Agreement dated 14.05.2001. A Sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide its order dated 16.10.2005. The impugned arbitral award was passed by the Sole Arbitrator on 03.06.2019. The Appellant on or around 18.04.2022 filed a Section 34 petition challenging the impugned award.

As the Section 34 petition was beyond the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (“A&C Act”) the Appellant filed an application under Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation od delay of 287 days in filing the same. The said application along with the Section 34 petition was dismissed by the trial court by way of the impugned order dated 18.10.2024 as being barred by limitation.

Against this impugned order, the Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 13, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37, A&C Act.

Contentions

The Appellant contended that she did not have sufficient knowledge about the said arbitration proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator and also about the Impugned Award until the receipt of notice of the execution proceedings as she had never received any notice from the Sole Arbitrator or the other parties regarding the said proceedings.

It is the case of the Appellant that it as only after inspecting the arbitral record on 18.07.2024, that she for the first time discovered that one alleged copy of General Power of Attorney dated 14.12.2008 had been allegedly issued by her on the basis of which she was being represented before the Sole Arbitrator by her mother Smt. Indira Chopra. The Appellant contended that she did not remember having ever executed any Power of Attorney in favour of her mother.

The Appellant further submitted that though she had received a notice dated 24.09.2019 from the counsel of her mother referring to the impugned award and there was subsequent correspondence on the same, it was not sufficient notice of the arbitral proceedings or the impugned award as there was only a reference to the impugned award. In any case, it was also not claimed in the correspondence that a copy of the impugned award had been supplied to the Appellant.

On the other hand, the Counsel for the Respondent submitted that from the correspondence exchanged between the parties, it would be apparent that the Appellant was fully ward of the impugned arbitral award. She never demanded a copy of the same in spite of the correspondence calling upon her to execute documents in compliance with the said award.

Placing reliance on the judgment dated 06.01.2020 of the Madras High Court in Original Petition No. 549/2019 titled M/s Resurgent Power Project Ltd. V. M/s ABB India Ltd, he submitted that in such a case, the limitation for filing of the petition under Section 34, A&C Act has rightly been held by the trial court to have expired.

He submitted that the Appellant was being represented by her mother before the learned Sole Arbitrator on the basis of a power of attorney which the Appellant is now falsely claiming to be forged.

Observations

Citing a plethora of case laws including Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 2, the Court observed that it is settled law that the limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act would commence only from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party making the application for setting it aside. The main question for determination in the present case was whether the Appellant had received the impugned award.

Th Court noted that the Appellant had challenged the Power of Attorney as being forged, this question and issued could not be determined in a petition filed under Section 34 of the A&C Act against the impugned award. Additionally, the Court had not been informed of the Appellant having instituted any independent proceedings challenging the said Power of Attorney till that date.

Further, the Court discussed the correspondence exchanged between the parties. The Court noted that by a legal notice dated 24.09.2019, the Counsel for Smt. Indira Chopra had forwarded to the Appellant, a General Power of Attorney for her perusal and for its execution/ registration in compliance with the Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2019. The Appellant sent a reply to this dated 07.10.2019, wherein she expressed no surprise to her being represented in the arbitration proceedings by her mother or to the impugned award being passed. Infact, she stated that the impugned award should be implemented without undue delay. This totally negates her stand that she did not know of the Award or did not have a copy of the same.

The Court observed that while it is true that Section 31(5) of the A&C Act requires the Arbitral Tribunal to deliver a signed copy of the Award to the party, however, if from the facts it is apparent that the party has a copy of the Award delivered through her Power of Attorney, further proof of such delivery need not be insisted upon. The delivery of a copy of the Award to the Power of Attorney holder, who has also represented the party in the arbitral proceedings, shall be a due compliance with Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.

Therefore, when a signed copy of the impugned award was received by her mother i.e. the Power of Attorney holder, for and on behalf the Appellant, it was due compliance of Section 31(5), A&C Act. The Court held that having accepted the Award, the Appellant could not be allowed to challenge the same belatedly or beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present appeal.

Case Title – Kiran Suran v. Satish Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 445

Case No. – FAO (COMM) 27/2025 & CM APPL. 4381/2025

Appearance-

For Petitioner - Mr.Shailendra Dahiya, Adv.

For Respondent - Mr.Sanjay Katyal and Ms.Ritika Bansal, Advs.

Date – 14.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order