P.K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs C.V. JAMES

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
1 2026:KER:81403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
th th
MONDAY, THE 26 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 4 KARTHIKA, 1948
OP(C) NO. 1828 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2026 IN IA 3/2025 IN
OPARB NO.4 OF 2024 OF ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT:
P.K. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/o LATE P.S. KRISHNAN, G-41 1 CROSS ROAD,
PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM -682036 AND HAVING
RESIDENCE AT BUILIDNG NO/39/5371, 1ST FLOOR,
4TH CROSS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682036
BY ADVS. SHRI.S.MURALI
SHRI.ASLAM K.K.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
C.V. JAMES, AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O VARGHESE, MUNDAMPILLIL HOUSE, KAJIRAPPILLY,
PROPRIETOR, SUKHODAYA HOSPITAL, KANJIRAPPILY,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686507
BY ADV SHRI.AYPE JOSEPH
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.10.2026, THE COURT ON 26.10.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
2 2026:KER:81403
C.R.
JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order in I.A.No.3 of 2025,
whereby the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, rejected his plea that
OP(Arb) No.04 of 2024, filed by the respondent under Section 34 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), is barred by
limitation.
2. In Arbitration Claim No.1 of 2023, filed by the petitioner, an
award was passed in his favour on 26.03.2024. The respondent
challenged it in OP(Arb) No.04 of 2024. The petitioner contends that
the respondent was served with an unsigned copy of the award on
08.04.2024 and that limitation under Section 34(3) began to run
from that date. The respondent contends that he obtained a duly
signed copy only on 23.06.2024, and that limitation runs from that
date.
3. The Court below held that until a duly signed copy of the

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
3 2026:KER:81403
award, as contemplated by the Act, is delivered to the party, there is
no valid or deemed delivery in the eyes of law, and that limitation
under Section 34(3) therefore commenced only on 23.06.2024.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent received an authenticated copy on 08.04.2024, though
not signed by the Arbitrator, and was aware of its contents;
limitation therefore began on that date. It is further argued that, as
the appendix to the order shows that no documents other than
Exts.A1 to A3 were produced, the Court below erred in accepting
the respondent’s contention.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
Arbitrator’s proceedings dated 23.06.2024 show that the respondent
had not collected the award, and that the copy received on
08.04.2024 was one sent by speed post by the petitioner’s counsel, as
seen from Exts.P5 and P5(d). The respondent thus received no copy,
signed or otherwise, from the Arbitrator before 23.06.2024.

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
4 2026:KER:81403
6. The question is whether limitation reckons from 08.04.2024,
when the respondent received an unsigned copy, or from
23.06.2024, when he obtained the duly signed copy from the
Arbitrator.
7. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:-
“ Section 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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy
shall be delivered to each party.”
“ Section 32. Termination of proceedings – (1)
The arbitral proceedings shall be terminated by
the final arbitral award or by an order of the
arbitral tribunal under sub-section (2).
xxxxxxxxxxxx
3. Subject to section 33 and sub-section (4) of
Section 34, the mandate of the arbitral tribunal

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
5 2026:KER:81403
shall terminate with the termination of the
arbitral proceedings.”
“ Section 34. Application for setting aside
arbitral award.
(1) xxxxxxxxx
(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 entertain the application
within a further period of thirty days, but not
thereafter. ”
8. Section 31(1) requires an award to be in writing and signed
by the members of the arbitral tribunal; signing is thus an essential
statutory requirement. Section 31(5) requires a signed copy to be
delivered to each party. Section 32(1) provides that arbitral

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
6 2026:KER:81403
proceedings terminate with the final award, but that termination
does not dispense with delivery under Section 31(5). Section 34(3)
runs limitation from the date on which the applicant “had received
the arbitral award”, and allows a further thirty days only on
sufficient cause. Read harmoniously, these provisions make legally
effective receipt of the signed award, and not mere knowledge of its
contents, the starting point of limitation. An unsigned copy does
not satisfy Section 31(5).
9. This view is settled by the decisions of the Apex Court In
Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors [(2005) 4
SCC 239], which held that delivery of an award under Section 31(5)
is a matter of substance, not of mere formality; that the stage under
Section 31 must be completed before termination under Section 32
arises; and that delivery by the tribunal must be followed by receipt
by the party. That delivery and receipt set in motion the periods
under Section 33(1), Section 33(4) and Section 34(3), and is
therefore an important stage in the arbitral proceedings.

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
7 2026:KER:81403
10. This was again reiterated in The State of Maharashtra and
Ors. v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 4 SCC 616], following Tecco
Trichy , holding that “received the arbitral award” in Section 34(3)
cannot be read apart from Section 31(5), which contemplates not
any copy of the award, but a copy signed by the members of the
tribunal. Where the law prescribes both the manner in which an
award is to be communicated and a period for challenging it,
limitation can commence only from receipt in the manner so
prescribed. The Court accordingly rejected the view that receipt of
a copy from the opposing party starts limitation.
11. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant
Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 7 SCC 657], the Apex Court reaffirmed
that signing is mandatory and not an empty formality, since an
award acquires legal validity and finality only upon being signed,
and that making an award and delivering it are distinct stages. The
date on which the signed award is made available to and received
by the parties is crucial: it sets in motion the period under Section

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
8 2026:KER:81403
33, marks termination of proceedings under Section 32(1), and
commences limitation under Section 34(3).
12. The Calcutta High Court has taken the same view. In Y D
Transport Company and Ors. v. Srei Equipment Finance Limited
[MANU/WB/2628/2025], it was held that limitation under Section
34(3) can commence only from receipt of the award in the manner
prescribed by Section 31(5), and not from the date a copy reaches
the applicant by any means or source. In Ashok Kumar Chaudhary
@ Ashok Kumar Ram Sabadh Chaudhary and Anr. v. Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited [A.P.No.742 of 2023 with A.P. No.741 of 2023,
dated 22.12.2023], it was observed that delivery of a signed copy is
the only mechanism known to law for serving an award, and that
Section 31(5) cannot be tailored to the facts of each case, failing
which an award-holder could always plead deemed service and
resist a Section 34 application as time-barred. In Ajibar Rahaman
and Anr. v. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.
[A.P. No.210 of 2023 and A.P.No.248 of 2023], it was held that

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
9 2026:KER:81403
delivery must be effective, in that the party must “receive” a signed
copy, and that a plea of deemed service must be tested against all
attending circumstances, since a mistaken presumption of receipt
may cause irrevocable loss of valuable statutory rights.
13. Given the above, it follows that an unsigned draft,
photocopy or other copy forwarded by the opposite party cannot,
merely because it conveys the contents of the award, substitute for
delivery and receipt of the signed copy under Section 31(5). The
question is not whether the party knew of the award, but whether
the signed award was delivered to and received by him in the
manner contemplated by the Act.
14. Here, the respondent received only an unsigned copy,
sent by the petitioner’s counsel, on 08.04.2024. The Arbitrator’s
proceedings dated 23.06.2024 show that the respondent had not
collected the award earlier, and Exts.P5 and P5(d) indicate that the
copy received on 08.04.2024 came from the petitioner’s counsel and

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
10 2026:KER:81403
was unsigned. That communication was not the delivery of the
signed award under Section 31(5). The petitioner’s reliance on the
appendix to the order, that no documents other than Exts.A1 to A3
were produced, does not alter the position or the date of receipt of
the signed copy.
15. The contention that the respondent ought to have invoked
Section 33 also fails. The period under Section 33 is likewise linked
to receipt of the award in accordance with the Act, and an unsigned
copy sent by the opposing party does not trigger it.
16. Accordingly, limitation under Section 34(3) commenced
only on 23.06.2024, when the respondent received the duly signed
copy, and not on 08.04.2024. The Section 34 petition was filed within
the period reckoned from 23.06.2024, and the Additional Sub Court,
through a well-considered order, rejected the plea of limitation. No
ground is made out to interfere with Ext.P6.

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
11 2026:KER:81403
O.P.(C) No.1828 of 2026 is accordingly dismissed. Having
regard to the circumstances of the case and the age of the parties,
the Additional District Court-IV, Kottayam, to which the matter is
now transferred and renumbered as O.P.(Arb) No.198 of 2024, is
directed to dispose of the matter, at the earliest, at any rate, within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
DMR/-
Judgment reserved 14/10/26
Date of Judgment 26/10/26
Judgment dictated 14/10/26
Draft judgment placed 15/10/26
Judgment corrected 26/10/26
Final judgment uploaded 26/10/26

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
12 2026:KER:81403
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO. 1828 OF 2026
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(C) NO. 1011 OF 2026
FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA ON 24.03.2026
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) NO.
1011 OF 2026 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED
07.04.2026
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CASE HISTORY TIMELINE
OF OP(ARB) NO. 4 OF 2024 ON THE FILES OF
THE COMMERCIAL COURT KOTTAYAM DATED NIL
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM OF
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 17.03.2026
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE
NOTIFICATION DATED 11.03.2026
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO PRODUCED BEFORE
THE HON'BLE COMMERCIAL COURT, KOTTAYAM
DATED 27.05.2025 (THE DATE "27.05.2025"
IS AN INADVERTENT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR.
THE CORRECT DATE IS "27.05.2026".)
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS
PRODUCED BEFORE THE HON'BLE COMMERCIAL
COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 27.05.2025 (THE
DATE "27.05.2025" IS AN INADVERTENT
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. THE CORRECT DATE IS
"27.05.2026".)
Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT 1 (COPY OF
NOTARISED COPY OF AWARD PASSED IN
ARBITRATION CASE NO. 1/2023 BY THE
LEARNED SOLE ARBITRATOR, RETIRED
DISTRICT JUDGE SRI MURALI GOPALA
PANDALAI) PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL
COURT KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT 2 (NOTARISED
COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE ARBITRATION
CLAIM OP 1/2023 OF ARBITRATOR RTD
DISTRICT JUDGE MURALI GOPALAKRISHNA
PANDALAI) PRODUCED BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL
COURT KOTTAYAM

CNR : KLHC010489292026

OP(C) No.1828 OF 2026
13 2026:KER:81403
Exhibit P5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT 3 (COPY OF
POSTAL RECEIPT) PRODUCED BEFORE THE
COMMERCIAL COURT KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT 4 (COPY OF
POSTAL TRACKING REPORT) PRODUCED BEFORE
THE COMMERCIAL COURT KOTTAYAM
Exhibit P6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3
OF 2025 IN OP(ARB) NO. 4 OF 2024 ON THE
FILES OF COMMERCIAL COURT KOTTAYAM DATED
04.06.2026
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING EXECUTED IN BETWEEN C.V.
JAMES AND P.K. KRISHNAMURTHY DATED
28/02/2023
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MUTUALLY CONSENTED
LETTER 31/08/2023 SIGNED BY
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND WITNESSES/
MEDIATORS