Non-delivery of signed arbitral awards under Section 31(5) prevents commencement of limitation for Section 34 challenges.

The petitioner (Srei) challenged two purported arbitral awards dated September 17 and 21, 2020, which dismissed its claims against the respondent.

Srei contended that no arbitral proceedings ever took place and the awards were fraudulent fabrications discovered only during NCLT proceedings in 2024.

Srei had undergone a change in management following RBI-mandated insolvency proceedings due to financial irregularities by previous officials.

The respondent argued the challenge was time-barred, asserting that copies of the awards were served in 2020 via a letter received by a Srei employee.

1. Whether receipt of a photocopy of an award satisfies the requirements of Section 31(5) to trigger the limitation period under Section 34(3).

2. Whether a court has the jurisdiction under Section 34 to set aside an award on the ground that it is non-existent or a product of fraud.

3. Whether the impugned awards were vitiated by fraud or patent illegality under Section 34(2)(b) and (2-A).

The court applied Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates the delivery of a "signed copy" of the award to each party.

It relied on Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies (P) Ltd. (2021) and Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) to establish that limitation under Section 34(3) only commences upon receipt of a signed copy, which is a matter of substance.

The court also interpreted Section 34(2)(b)(ii) regarding "public policy" and "fraud," and the "patent illegality" ground under Section 34(2-A).

The court found that the limitation period never began because the respondent failed to prove delivery of "signed copies" of the awards; only photocopies were ever produced.

On the merits, the court noted that despite the Arbitrator claiming she returned all records to the parties, the respondent could not produce a single document from the alleged proceedings—no pleadings, minutes, or evidence affidavits.

The court observed gross contradictions in the awards: they claimed a "joint reference" that was actually a unilateral letter, and the Arbitrator’s subsequent demand for costs contradicted the award’s own terms.

Furthermore, the parties' correspondence after the purported awards showed they were still "reconciling" accounts without any mention of existing awards.

The court held that the expression "arbitral award" in Section 34 must be "read up" to include "purported awards" to prevent parties from being left remediless against fraudulent instruments.

It held that the total absence of arbitral records and the failure to serve signed copies rendered the awards invalid.

The Court allowed AP-COM No. 529 and 530 of 2024, setting aside the purported awards of September 17 and 21, 2020, as unenforceable and in conflict with the public policy of India.

Consequential applications for stay were disposed of as infructuous.