![Limitation for filing appeal commences from the date of service of the signed arbitral award.. Braham Din Pandey & Ors. v. The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd. & Anr. [W.P.(C) 2095/2026]. Delhi High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/limitation-for-filing-appeal-commences-from-the-date-of-service-of-the-signed-arbitral-awa-e5ef0f38b5794fe7b412845c218acf6b.webp)
01Facts
The Petitioners defaulted on personal loans from the Respondent Society, leading to an ex-parte Arbitral Award dated January 25, 2012
p. 2, 4The Petitioners claimed they were never served in the arbitral proceedings and did not receive a signed copy of the award
pp. 2-3Between 2019 and 2021, the Petitioners filed RTI applications and a consumer complaint (No. 136/2021) to obtain the award copy, which was eventually provided by the Registrar Co-operative Societies (RCS) during consumer forum proceedings in 2023
pp. 2-3The Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (DCT) dismissed the Petitioners' subsequent appeal as barred by limitation, citing a 12-year delay and a lack of "justifiable explanation"
pp. 2-3, 8The Petitioners challenged the DCT’s order before the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
pp. 1-202Issues
i.Whether the appeal before the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal was barred by limitation despite the alleged non-service of the signed arbitral award
p. 9ii.Whether the arbitral award was sustainable given the procedural manner in which it was passed
pp. 3-403Law Applied
The Court primarily applied the provisions of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, specifically Section 70 (disputes) and Section 71 (reference to arbitration)
p. 4It emphasized the necessity of due process and service of the signed arbitral award to trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal
p. 9The Court also exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to modify the award's interest component to ensure equity and finality
pp. 1, 9-10Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 12
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the 2012 arbitral award was silent on how the Petitioners were served and appeared to have been passed in an "extremely hurried manner" (summons issued for Jan 16 and Jan 24, with the award passed on Jan 25)
p. 3, 5It noted that neither the RCS nor the Society could provide proof that a signed copy of the award was ever served on the Petitioners
p. 3, 9Consequently, the DCT’s finding that the appeal was barred by limitation was erroneous because the limitation period only commences upon receipt of the signed award
p. 9While the Petitioners had "knowledge" of the award by 2019, they had actively sought the official copy through RTI and consumer forum channels without success until early 2023
pp. 7-9To resolve the long-standing dispute, the Court determined that the principal amount remained due but found the accumulated interest component excessive given the procedural lapses
pp. 9-1005Holding
The High Court set aside the dismissal on grounds of limitation and modified the arbitral award to achieve a settlement
pp. 9-10The Petitioners are directed to pay the principal sum of ₹4,51,681/- with a reduced interest rate of 7.5% per annum from December 31, 2011, to April 30, 2026
p. 10If paid by the deadline, no further interest is due; otherwise, the rate increases to 9.5% per annum from May 1, 2026
p. 10Additionally, the Court directed the RCS to explore mediation/Lok Adalat drives for similar pending co-operative disputes
pp. 10-11Original Court PDF
Braham Din Pandey & Ors. v. The Sahu Co-operative Urban T/C Society Ltd. & Anr. [W.P.(C) 2095/2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
