A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf set aside an order under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 passed by the District Judge, noting that the judge failed to give due consideration to Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. Since the limitation period for Section 34 commences upon the receipt of signed award copy, the bench held that it was incumbent on the judge to note the date on which the signed copy was received by the Appellant. Brief Facts: The Appellant filed an appeal in Allahabad High Court (“High Court”) from an order issued by the learned District Judge, Rampur, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”). The Appellant contended that the appeal was timely filed within the prescribed period under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. It argued that the Appellant received only the certified copy of the arbitral award on August 6, 2022, without ever obtaining the signed copy. Consequently, the appeal against the award was filed before the District Judge on August 6, 2022, indicating no delay in its submission. In contrast, the Respondents presented an opposing view, asserting that the appeal was lodged approximately a year after the issuance of the award. It maintained that since Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the District Judge's order was appropriate. Observations by the High Court: Upon examining the order issued under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the High Court noted that it became evident that the District Judge merely acknowledged the Appellant's assertion regarding the non-receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award. However, there was a conspicuous absence of any determination regarding when the signed copy of the award was actually served upon the Appellant. The High Court held that it was incumbent upon the District Judge to investigate and establish the date on which the signed copy of the arbitral award was received. The failure to do so constituted a failure to grasp the Supreme Court decision in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited vs. Navigant Technologies Private Limited (2021) 7 SCC 657. This ruling specifically delineated that the limitation period for contesting an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act commences upon the receipt of a signed copy of the arbitral award. Given the absence of any finding concerning the date of receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral award by the District Judge, the High Court held that the matter necessitated remand to the judge for a fresh adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was upheld. Case Title: Smt. Sudha vs Union Of India And 3 Others. Case Number: - APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 OF ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT 1996 No. - 271 of 2022 Advocate for the Appellant: Ravi Kant, Vatsala Advocate for the Respondent: A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra, Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal. Click Here To Read/Download Order

A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

A&C | Allahabad High Court Set Aside Section 34 Order, District Judge Failed To Take Into Consideration When Appellant Received Signed Award Copy

Rajesh Kumar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers