Karnataka High Court
Union Of India vs M/S. Inderjit Mehta on 10 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB
COMAP No. 395 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.395 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (AIR FORCE), MES
No.2, DC AREA
MES ROAD
YASHWANTHPUR
BENGALURU-560 022
Digitally signed
by
CHANNEGOWDA ...APPELLANT
PREMA
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. H. SHANTHIBHUSHAN, DSGI)
Karnataka
AND:
M/S. INDERJIT MEHTA
CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB
COMAP No. 395 of 2024
HC-KAR
44 C/9, 1ST FLOOR
KISHANGARH POST
VASANT KUNJ
NEW DELHI-110 070
REP. BY DIRECTOR
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. PRINCY PONNAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1-A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT OF 2015, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2024 PASSED IN
COM. A.P. No.13 OF 2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE LXXXV
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-86) AT
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE B) AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB
COMAP No. 395 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This appeal is filed under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, preferred against an order dated 18.07.2024 passed in Com.AP No.13/2024 by LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-86) ('Commercial Court') in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Arbitration Act' for short).
2. We have heard Shri. H. Shanthibhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India (DSGI) appearing for the appellant as well as Smt. Princy Ponnan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The learned DSGI submits that the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the Commercial Court has been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the time provided under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. It is contended that since the certified copy of the award had been issued to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR the appellant only on 04.01.2024, the application under Section 34 Arbitration Act preferred on 23.01.2024 was well within time. It is contended that what was communicated to the appellant through email on 13.09.2023 was only a copy of the award and that the hard copy which was received by the appellant on 20.09.2023 was also not a duly authenticated certified copy. It is therefore contended that the finding of the Commercial Court that the Section 34 application filed on 23.01.2024 is out of time, is clearly erroneous.
4. The learned DSGI would place reliance on the following judgments:-
• M/s. Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal and Another, by Order dated 28.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No.4480 of 2016;
• State of Maharashtra and Others v. ARK Builders Private Limited, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 616;
• Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited, reported in (2021) 7 SCC 657; and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR • Kristal Vision Projects Private Limited v. Union of India, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3738.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that, admittedly, on a signed copy of the award was sent by email by the Arbitrator to the appellant on 13.09.2023 along with a covering letter. The covering note reads as follows:-
"Dear All, Please find the Award (37 pages, as attachment) made and signed by me today i.e., 13.09.2023.
Regards.
(SUDHIR KUMAR) Sole Arbitrator"
6. Further, in the application preferred by the appellant before the Commercial Court itself clearly stated that the signed copy of the award had been received by the appellant on 20.09.2023. It is submitted that even if that date is taken as the date of receipt of signed copy of the award, the period of three months would expire on -6- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR 19.12.2023 and the further 30 days would expire on 19.01.2024. It is submitted that since the application was admittedly made only on 23.01.2024, it was out of time and the Commercial Court was perfectly justified in having rejected the application. It is further contended that what is contemplated under the provisions of the Arbitration Act is the communication of a signed copy of the award and that the signing of the award by the sole arbitrator itself would be the authentication required.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would place reliance on the following judgments:-
• Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Dept. of Sports, Govt. of India v. ERNST and Young Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as ERNST and Young LLP) and Another, by Order dated 23.08.2023 passed in O.M.P. (COMM) 377/2018;
• Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board v. Lakhvinder Singh, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9810, and -7- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR • Continental Telepower Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1859.
8. We have considered the contentions advanced. Section 31 of the Arbitration Act reads as follows:-
"31. Form and contents of arbitral award.-(1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signature is stated.
(3) The arbitral award shall state the reasons upon which it is based, unless,-
(a) the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given, or
(b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under Section 30.
(4) The arbitral award shall state its date and the place of arbitration as determined in accordance with Section 20 and the award shall be deemed to have been made at that place.
(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party.
x x x x x"
9. Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act specifically provides as follows:-
"(3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the -8- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter."
10. Now, we shall proceed to consider the decisions relied on by the appellant/Union. In State of Maharashtra's case (supra), the Apex Court held that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the award has to be reckoned from the date of copy of the award is delivered to/received by the party. It was further held that the copy which is to be delivered in terms of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act is a duly signed copy of the award.
11. In Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited's case (supra), the Apex Court held that the signing of the award by the Arbitrator is not an empty formality but is a mandatory requirement of an arbitral -9- NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR award and that limitation starts to run only from the date of receipt of a signed copy of the award by the objector. Paragraph No.26 of the judgment reads as follows:-
"26. Section 31(1) is couched in mandatory terms, and provides that an arbitral award shall be made in writing and signed by all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. If the Arbitral Tribunal comprises of more than one arbitrator, the award is made when the arbitrators acting together finally express their decision in writing, and is authenticated by their signatures. An award takes legal effect only after it is signed by the arbitrators which give it authentication. There can be no finality of the award, except after it is signed, since signing of the award gives legal effect and validity to it. The making and delivery of the award are different stages of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is authenticated by the person who makes it. The statute makes it obligatory for each of the members of the Tribunal to sign the award, to make it a valid award. The usage of the term "shall" makes it a mandatory requirement. t is not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with."
12. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Kristal Vision Projects Private Limited's case (supra), has held that the time starts to run for the purpose of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act only when the duly signed copy is received by the "party" and service to anyone else is not sufficient. Paragraph No.44 of the judgment reads as follows:-
"44. In view of the above, the law on the mode and manner of 'delivery' of the 'signed copy' of the award under Section 31(5) of the Act is summarized as under:
a) Mandatory Requirement: Section 31(5) of the Act requires a signed copy to be delivered to the party and the same has to be strictly complied with as the period of limitation to file application under Section 34 of the Act shall commence only upon delivery of the signed copy of the award to the parties.
b) Signed Copy : The term 'signed copy' means either copy of the award bearing original signature or a duly authenticated/certified copy of the signed copy of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal or the Arbitral Institution administering the arbitration.
c) Delivery of the Award : It is the obligation of the Arbitral Tribunal to ensure delivery of the signed copy to the parties. In case the Arbitral Tribunal has pronounced the award at a virtual hearing and directed the parties to collect the award, it is the responsibility of the Arbitral Tribunal to dispatch the signed copy of the award, if any party fails to collect the same.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR
d) Delivery to the Parties : The Arbitral Tribunal has to ensure that the signed copy of the award is delivered to the parties. A delivery of the signed copy of the award to the counsel of the parties will constitute a valid delivery in cases where the parties have duly authorized the counsel to collect or provided the address of the counsel for service of communication to parties.
e) Electronic Delivery : A signed copy of the award can be delivered electronically in accordance with Section 31(5) of the Act provided that the signed copy of the award attached to the electronic communication is duly authenticated by the Arbitral Tribunal or Arbitral Institution.
f) Delivery by Arbitral Institution : Delivery of the signed copy of the award by Arbitral Institution on behalf of the Tribunal to the parties and/or their authorized counsel shall be a valid service under Section 31(5) of the Act in Institutional Arbitrations."
13. In M/s. Motilal Agarwala's case (supra), the Apex Court has also taken the view that the time starts running when the signed copy of the award is received by the "party".
14. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Tecco Tirchy Engineers and Contractors reported in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR (2005) 4 SCC 239, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited's case (supra), State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Damini Construction Co. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 742, has clearly held that the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act would commence once a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party as required under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
15. Relying on the above precedents, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court by judgment dated 04.05.2017, held that the delivery of a signed copy of the award/order under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act by the arbitrator with his covering letter amounts to a proper delivery as required under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
16. Further, it is also been held that what is contemplated is the receipt of a signed copy of the award
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR by the parties and that time would start to run on such typed copy being received.
17. In the instant case, we notice from the application preferred before the Commercial Court itself that the appellant had averred as follows:-
"5. x x x x x On completion of written and oral submissions, Arbitrator has awarded a huge sum of Rs.5.5 crores (approx) with Pre award interest @10% per annum on awarded amount from the date of invocation of Arbitration by the Respondent i.e. wef 23 Sep 2019 till the date of award i.e. on 13 Sep 2023 and future interest if not paid within 90 days on receipt of this Award i.e. on or before 20 Dec 2023 as hard copy of the award was received on 20 Sep 2023 in Appellant department."
18. The argument of the learned DSGI is to the effect that the delivery of the signed copy which is admitted by the appellant would be inconsequential since a certified copy of the award was received from the arbitrator after repeated requests only on 04.01.2024.
19. Having considered the contentions advanced and a clear language of Sections 31(5) as well as 34(3) of the Arbitration Act and the judgments which are relied on
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR by the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the opinion that in view of the clear admission made by the appellant that a signed copy of the award had been received on 20.09.2023, the findings of the Commercial Court cannot be found fault with. Further, a memo has been placed on record by the respondent indicating that even the email dated 13.09.2023 contained a covering note from the Arbitrator, which clearly authenticated the copy of the award which had been sent by that email. Though the learned DSGI submits that the email was not sent to the proper person, it appears from the email ID to which the communication was sent by the arbitrator and that it was sent to the very same entity which has preferred this appeal.
20. In the light of the admissions made in the application itself that the signed copy of the award was received on 20.09.2023, we find that there is no error in the order passed by the Commercial Court. The appeal accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB COMAP No. 395 of 2024 HC-KAR All pending interlocutory applications shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12