A party cannot claim non-receipt after an arbitral award is sent to its registered address.

The petitioner sought a direction requiring the sole Arbitrator to furnish the arbitral award dated 18 April 2015 and the arbitration case papers, so that he could challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

He asserted that he had not received notice of the arbitration or a copy of the award, and that he learned of the award only during execution proceedings.

The respondents relied on documents identifying the petitioner’s address as No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, including the loan agreement and later documents. The second respondent also relied on a letter dated 6 May 2015 enclosing the award, supported by proof of delivery.

The Arbitrator stated that a certified copy had been sent to that address but returned marked “left”; he also said the arbitration records had been destroyed by pests and termites. The petitioner filed this revision under Section 115 CPC seeking the documents and award.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction requiring the Arbitrator to furnish the award and arbitration papers, on the ground that he had not received the award and needed it to bring a Section 34 challenge?

Whether the petitioner’s delay and the evidence of dispatch or delivery of the award to his recorded address defeated that request?

Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party; Section 34(3) provides a three-month period to challenge an award from receipt of the award, with a further period of up to 30 days that may be allowed by the court, but not thereafter.

The Court applied the principle in Madan and Co. v. Wazir Javir Chand that dispatch by registered post to the addressee’s established address may constitute sufficient compliance, and relied on Veeramaneni Venugopalrao v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. for the proposition that dispatch to the last known address may suffice where a party aware of the arbitration has failed to notify a change of address.

The Court also referred to decisions of the Delhi and Patna High Courts concerning delay in challenging awards and the finality of an unchallenged award.

The Court found that the petitioner had repeatedly used No.11, Mandapam Road, Kilpauk, as his address in the loan-related documents and other proceedings, and had not established that he had notified the Arbitrator of a change of address.

Although the Arbitrator’s copy was returned marked “left,” the second respondent had sent the petitioner a copy of the award in May 2015, supported by proof of delivery; the petitioner did not dispute that letter.

The Court therefore rejected the claim that the petitioner remained unaware of the award until the execution proceedings, and considered his prolonged inaction inconsistent with the asserted need to obtain a copy before challenging it.

It further held that dispatch to the petitioner’s established address and his failure to update that address did not entitle him to use the returned cover to revive the opportunity to challenge the award.

It dismissed the civil revision petition for lack of merit, made no order as to costs, and dismissed the connected miscellaneous petition.