Service of signed arbitral award upon counsel constitutes valid delivery under Section 31(5) triggering limitation period.

The Petitioner (Union of India) awarded a tender for railway construction to the Respondent. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration and a common Award dated 22.09.2023.

The Petitioner’s counsel collected a signed copy of the Award on 09.10.2023.

After the Respondent filed execution proceedings in February 2024, the Petitioner applied to DIAC for a "copy to copy" of the Award, receiving it on 18.07.2024.

The Petitioner filed Section 34 petitions thereafter, arguing that receipt by counsel was unauthorized and that limitation should run from the July 2024 receipt.

1. Whether the service of an arbitral award upon the counsel of a party constitutes valid "receipt" by the party under Section 31(5) to trigger the limitation period under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.

2. Whether the Petitioner’s Section 34 petitions were barred by limitation.

Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates a three-month period for challenging an award, with a maximum 30-day discretionary extension via the proviso.

The phrase "but not thereafter" in Section 34(3) expressly excludes Section 5 of the Limitation Act as held in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.

The principle of strict adherence to timelines for filing objections as established in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India.

Interpretation of Section 31(5) of the A&C Act regarding the necessity of delivery of a signed copy of the award to the party.

The Court held that an advocate acts as a "recognized agent" of a party, and receipt of the signed Award by the counsel on 09.10.2023 was a valid delivery under Section 31(5).

The Court noted the Petitioner’s failure to plead that the counsel’s authority was specifically curtailed at the time of receipt.

A self-serving affidavit filed two years later was deemed insufficient to displace the contemporaneous record.

The Petitioner's passivity despite knowing of the Award's pronouncement on 22.09.2023 demonstrated a lack of diligence; a party cannot indefinitely postpone limitation by choosing to obtain a fresh copy only after execution proceedings begin.

The Section 34 petitions were "hopelessly barred by limitation" as they were filed beyond the maximum 120-day outer limit; both petitions and all pending applications were dismissed.