Statutory Limitation Under Section 34(3) Bars Challenge to Arbitral Award Following Voluntary Acquiescence and Implementation

The parties are brothers who entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 27.02.2019 to divide family properties

Disputes arose, leading to an Arbitration Agreement dated 13.06.2021

An Interim Award was passed on 13.11.2021 concerning properties in Gurugram and Howrah

The Petitioner (Vinay Mawandia) challenged the award under Section 34 of the AC Act in January 2024, alleging he never received a signed copy, the award lacked reasons, and it improperly affected non-signatories

Simultaneously, the Respondents filed an execution petition under Section 36 of the AC Act

WhatsApp records showed the Petitioner acknowledged the award on 13.11.2021 and participated in its implementation for nearly two years before filing the objection

1. Whether the Section 34 Objection Petition is barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the AC Act

2. Whether the Petitioner is precluded from challenging the award based on the doctrine of approbate and reprobate due to his post-award conduct

3. Whether the Interim Award suffers from patent illegality or perversity warranting interference

The Court applied Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates a three-month limitation period for challenging an award, with a maximum discretionary extension of 30 days "but not thereafter"

It relied on Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, which establish that these timelines are mandatory and exclude Section 5 of the Limitation Act

The Court also applied the doctrine of consensus ad idem under Sections 10 and 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, to validate awards based on mutual settlement

the principles of patent illegality and perversity as defined in OPG Power Generation (P) Ltd. v. Enexio Power Cooling Solutions and Ssangyong Engg. Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI

The Court first addressed limitation, noting the Petitioner filed the challenge over two years after the award

While the Petitioner claimed non-receipt of a signed copy under Section 31(5), the Court found his WhatsApp acknowledgment ("Noted thanks") and active participation in implementation—such as negotiating gift deeds and moving furniture—proved he had sufficient knowledge and had accepted the award's finality

The Court determined the award was a consensual settlement rather than a contested adjudication

Consequently, the Petitioner's attempts to raise technical flaws (missing third signature) or rights of third parties (Mrs. Madhu Mawandia) were dismissed, as he had already derived benefits and sought to implement the award, thus triggering the doctrine of approbate and reprobate

The lack of a condonation of delay application further weakened the Petitioner's standing

Regarding the Execution Petition (EX.P. 82/2023), the Court found no legal impediment to enforcement and directed the Judgment Debtor (Petitioner) to transfer the Gurugram property to the Decree Holders (Respondents) within six weeks as per the Interim Award