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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

NC: 2025:KHC:45373-DB

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

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

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

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

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

HC-KAR

by the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the