[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Mahendrasing Udaysing Vansdiya on 9 April, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 924 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 925 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 927 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 928 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 929 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 930 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 934 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 935 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 936 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 937 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 941 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 944 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 956 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 961 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 971 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 972 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 973 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 974 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 975 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 976 of 2026
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 992 of 2026
=============================================
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Versus
MAHENDRASING UDAYSING VANSDIYA & ORS.
=============================================
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Apr 16 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Apr 17 23:54:06 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
Appearance:
MR.MAULIK G. NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 3
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR.VEDANT J. RAJGURU FOR MR TUSHAR L CHAUHAN(12449) for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Having heard Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, the learned advocate
for the appellant, Mr.Vedant J. Rajguru, the learned advocate
assisted by Mr.Tushar L. Chauhan, the learned advocate for the
private respondents and Ms.Hetal Patel, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader representing the State Respondents in all the
connected writ petitions.
2. A common question arises for consideration before us in the
present set of appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act' 1996 (for short, "the Act' 1996"). These appeals,
therefore, have been heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment with the consent of the learned counsels for the
parties.
3. It is pertinent is to note that the dispute raised in the present
appeals to challenge the order of the Commercial Court in
dismissing the application under Section 34 on the ground of delay
was about the date of receipt of the arbitral award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
4. Before the Court under Section 34, a categorical stand was
taken by the private respondents that as per the information
received by them under the Right to Information Act' 2005 of the
outward register of the office of Arbitrator / Collector, Surat,
produced vide Exhibit '9', the office of the Arbitrator dispatched
the award to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and
farmers both on 09.10.2023. The stand of the NHAI before the
Commercial Court based on the extract of their inward register was
that the copy of the award was received in the office of the NHAI,
PIU Surat on 01.12.2023.
5. The contention of NHAI, therefore, was that the application
under Section 34 cannot be rejected on the ground of delay,
inasmuch as, limitation for filing of the said application would
commence from 01.12.2023, when the award was received in the
office of the NHAI.
6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and
perused the record, by order dated 13.03.2026, while noticing the
rival contentions of the learned counsels for the parties, we have
directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing
the State / Collector to bring the entire original dispatch register of
the office of the Arbitrator / Collector, extract of which has been
submitted by the respondent vide Exhibit '9' before the Commercial
Court, a copy whereof was stated to have been obtained from the
office of the Collector under the Right to Information Act' 2005.
7. Today, when the matter was taken up, a copy of the original
dispatch register from the office of the Arbitrator / Collector having
entries of the dispatch from 03.10.2023 till 30.10.2023 has been
placed before us.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
8. A bare perusal of the dispatch register submitted in original,
clearly indicates that the copies of the arbitral award in Arbitration
Case Nos.22/18 to 38/18, 43/18 to 45/18, were dispatched on
09.10.2023 at the address of the Project Director, National
Highways Authority of India at Surat.
9. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision of the
Commercial Court in recording the date of service of the arbitral
award upon the applicant - NHAI.
10. As regards the submission of Mr.Maulik Nanavati, the
learned advocate for the appellant based on the decision of the
Apex Court in Motilal Agarwala v. State of W.B. [2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1876], suffice it to say that the said decision was
rendered in the facts of the case, which were not in dispute.
11. The question before the Apex Court therein was whether the
delivery of the award to the authorized representatives of the
respondent was effective delivery to a party to the arbitration.
Considering the expression "party" as defined in Section 2(i)(h) of
the Act' 1996 read with Section 31(5) and Section 34(2) of the Act,
the Apex Court relying upon the decision of Union of India v.
Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors [(2005) 4 SCC 239]
and Benarsi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters (P)
Ltd., [(2012) 9 SCC 496] has noted that any reference made to
the 'party' in Section 31(5) and Section 34(2) of the Act' 1996 can
only mean the party himself and not his or her agent, or advocate
empowered to act on the basis of a Vakalatnama. The proper
compliance with Section 31 (5) would mean delivery of a signed
copy of the Arbitral Award on the 'party' himself and not on his
advocate, which gives the 'party' concerned the right to proceed
under Section 34(3) of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
12. Much emphasis has been laid to the quoted paragraph No.
'11' from the decision in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors
(supra) in paragraph No. '23' of the decision relied by the learned
counsel for the appellant, namely Motilal Agarwala (supra),
which reads as under:-
"23. This Court has held that the award should be received in the
context of huge organisations by the person who has knowledge of
the proceedings and who would be the best person to understand
and appreciate the arbitral award as also to take a decision in the
matter of moving appropriate applications. In this context, the
following paragraphs from Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors
(supra) are relevant and repays close study:--
"6. Form and contents of the arbitral award are provided by
Section 31 of the Act. The arbitral award drawn up in the
manner prescribed by Section 31 of the Act has to be signed
and dated. According to sub-section (5), "after the arbitral
award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party".
The term "party" is defined by clause (h) of Section 2 of the Act
as meaning "a party to an arbitration agreement". The
definition is to be read as given unless the context otherwise
requires. Under sub-section (3) of Section 34 the limitation of 3
months commences from the date on which "the party making
that application" had received the arbitral award. We have to
see what is the meaning to be assigned to the term "party" and
"party making the application" for setting aside the award in
the context of the State or a department of the Government,
more so a large organisation like the Railways.
7. It is well known that the Ministry of Railways has a very
large area of operation covering several divisions, having
different divisional heads and various departments within the
division, having their own departmental heads. The General
Manager of the Railways is at the very apex of the division with
the responsibility of taking strategic decisions, laying down
policies of the organisation, giving administrative instructions
and issuing guidelines in the organisation. He is from elite
managerial cadre which runs the entire organisation of his
division with different departments, having different
departmental heads. The day-to-day management and
operations of different departments rests with different
departmental heads. The departmental head is directly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
connected and concerned with the departmental functioning
and is alone expected to know the progress of the matter
pending before the Arbitral Tribunal concerning his
department. He is the person who knows exactly where the
shoe pinches, whether the arbitral award is adverse to the
department's interest. The departmental head would naturally
be in a position to know whether the arbitrator has committed a
mistake in understanding the department's line of submissions
and the grounds available to challenge the award. He is aware
of the factual aspect of the case and also the factual and legal
aspects of the questions involved in the arbitration proceedings.
It is also a known fact and the Court can take judicial notice of
it that there are several arbitration proceedings pending
consideration concerning affairs of the Railways before
arbitration. The General Manager, with executive workload of
the entire division cannot be expected to know all the niceties of
the case pending before the Arbitral Tribunal or for that matter
the arbitral award itself and to take a decision as to whether the
arbitral award deserves challenge, without proper assistance of
the departmental head. The General Manager, being the head
of the division, at best is only expected to take final decision
whether the arbitral award is to be challenged or not on the
basis of the advice and the material placed before him by the
person concerned with arbitration proceedings. Taking a final
decision would be possible only if the subject-matter of
challenge, namely, the arbitral award is known to the
departmental head, who is directly concerned with the subject-
matter as well as arbitral proceedings. In large organisations
like the Railways, "party" as referred to in Section 2(h) read
with Section 34(3) of the Act has to be construed to be a person
directly connected with and involved in the proceedings and
who is in control of the proceedings before the arbitrator.
8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section (5) of
Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is a matter of
substance. It is only after the stage under Section 31 has passed
that the stage of termination of arbitral proceedings within the
meaning of Section 32 of the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral
award to the party, to be effective, has to be "received" by the
party. This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the
party of the award sets in motion several periods of limitation
such as an application for correction and interpretation of an
award within 30 days under Section 33(1), an application for
making an additional award under Section 33(4) and an
application for setting aside an award under Section 34(3) and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
so on. As this delivery of the copy of award has the effect of
conferring certain rights on the party as also bringing to an end
the right to exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed
period of limitation which would be calculated from that date,
the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and the
receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important stage in
the arbitral proceedings.
9. In the context of a huge organisation like the Railways,
the copy of the award has to be received by the person who has
knowledge of the proceedings and who would be the best
person to understand and appreciate the arbitral award and
also to take a decision in the matter of moving an application
under sub-section (1) or (5) of Section 33 or under sub-section
(1) of Section 34.
10. In the present case, the Chief Engineer had signed the
agreement on behalf of the Union of India entered into with the
respondent. In the arbitral proceedings the Chief Engineer
represented the Union of India and the notices, during
proceedings of the arbitration, were served on the Chief
Engineer. Even the arbitral award clearly mentions that the
Union of India is represented by the Deputy Chief
Engineer/Gauge Conversion, Chennai. The Chief Engineer is
directly concerned with the arbitration, as the subject-matter of
arbitration relates to the department of the Chief Engineer and
he has direct knowledge of the arbitral proceedings and the
question involved before the arbitrator. The General Manager of
the Railways has only referred the matter for arbitration as
required under the contract. He cannot be said to be aware of
the question involved in the arbitration nor the factual aspect in
detail, on the basis of which the Arbitral Tribunal had decided
the issue before it, unless they are all brought to his notice by
the officer dealing with that arbitration and who is in charge of
those proceedings. Therefore, in our opinion, service of the
arbitral award on the General Manager by way of receipt in his
inwards office cannot be taken to be sufficient notice so as to
activate the department to take appropriate steps in respect of
and in regard to the award passed by the arbitrators to
constitute the starting point of limitation for the purposes of
Section 34(3) of the Act. The service of notice on the Chief
Engineer on 19-3-2001 would be the starting point of limitation
to challenge the award in the Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
11. We cannot be oblivious of the fact of impersonal
approach in the government departments and organisations like
Railways. In the very nature of the working of government
departments a decision is not taken unless the papers have
reached the person concerned and then an approval, if
required, of the competent authority or official above has been
obtained. All this could not have taken place unless the Chief
Engineer had received the copy of the award when only the
delivery of the award within the meaning of sub-section (5) of
Section 31 shall be deemed to have taken place."
13. Dealing with the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant about proper delivery of the award in the office of the
PIU, Surat, suffice it to say that the only ground to assert before
the Commercial Court that the application under Section 34 of the
Act' 1996 was filed well within time prescribed in Section 34(3) of
the Act' 1996, was that as per the entry in the inward register of
the appellant NHAI, the date of receipt of the award is 01.12.2023
and therefore, the limitation for filing Section 34 application would
commence from the said date.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited
attention of the Court to page No. '9' of the paper-book, which is
the copy of inward register of the NHAI, wherein there is an
endorsement / stamp of the date '01.12.2023' of the office of NHAI
PIU, Surat. However, the fact remains that neither any dispute was
raised with regard to the address mentioned in the extract of the
outward register submitted by the respondent, vide Exhibit '9',
received by them from the office of the Arbitrator / Collector, Surat,
nor any submission was made with regard to the non-service of the
award on a proper person or service on anyone not authorized by
the NHAI to substantiate the submissions of the NHAI based on the
decision of the Apex Court in Motilal Agarwal (supra) placed
before us.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/924/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2026
undefined
15. For the aforesaid, both the abovenoted arguments developed
by the learned counsel for the appellant for the first time in the
present set of appeals, about the address of PIU, Surat in the
outward register of the office of the Arbitrator / Collector being
doubtful or the copy of the award having not been served upon an
authorized person in the office of the NHAI, are liable to be
rejected outrightly, being misconceived.
16. With the above, we dismiss the present set of appeals being
devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
17. The original outward register produced from the office of the
Arbitrator / Collector by Ms.Hetal Patel, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader representing the State has been perused and
returned to the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
