Arbitration Challenge Survives Limitation Objection As Kerala HC Says Opponent-Sent Unsigned Copy Didn’t Start Section 34 Clock

An arbitral award was made in the petitioner’s favour on 26 March 2024.

The respondent challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner argued that limitation began on 8 April 2024, when the respondent received an unsigned copy sent by the petitioner’s counsel.

The respondent maintained that he received the duly signed award from the arbitrator only on 23 June 2024.

The Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, rejected the petitioner’s limitation objection, prompting this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Sections 31(1) and 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act require an arbitral award to be in writing and signed, and a signed copy to be delivered to each party; Section 34(3) starts the limitation period from the party’s receipt of the arbitral award.

Read together, these provisions require legally effective receipt of the signed award—not mere knowledge of its contents—to commence limitation.

Relying on Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 239, State of Maharashtra v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 616, and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 7 SCC 657, the Court held that delivery and receipt of a signed award under Section 31(5) are substantive requirements and that receipt of a copy from the opposing party does not start limitation.

The Court also held that the period under Section 33 is linked to receipt of the award in accordance with the Act.

The copy received on 8 April 2024 was unsigned and had been sent by the petitioner’s counsel, rather than delivered as a signed copy by the arbitrator.

The arbitrator’s proceedings and the relevant exhibits supported the respondent’s position that he had not collected the award before 23 June 2024.

Applying Sections 31(5) and 34(3), the Court found that the earlier communication conveyed the award’s contents but did not constitute statutory delivery or receipt.

The petitioner’s reliance on the lower court’s appendix did not alter the evidence or the date of receipt, and the unsigned copy likewise did not trigger Section 33.

As the Section 34 petition was filed within time, the Court found no ground to interfere with the order rejecting the limitation objection and dismissed the OP(C).

The Additional District Court-IV, Kottayam, was directed to dispose of the transferred and renumbered matter within two months of receiving the judgment.