[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Late Shri Smt. Navlibai W/O Shri Shri ... vs Motilal Khatri on 26 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8307
1 AA-22-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 26th OF MARCH, 2026
ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 22 of 2026
LATE SHRI SMT. NAVLIBAI W/O SHRI SHRI BHAGWANLAJJI
MEHTA DECEASED THROUGH HER LEGAL REPRENTATIVES AND
OTHERS
Versus
MOTILAL KHATRI
Appearance:
Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Girish Patwardhan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Paresh Joshi
- Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present Appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") being aggrieved
by the order dated 12/12/2025 passed by Ld. Additional District Judge,
Commercial Court, Indore in MJC (AV) No.60/2024 whereby the Court has
dismissed the application for condonation of delay and as a consequence the
application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of 'the Act' has been
rejected.
2. The appellant filed an application under Section 34 of 'the Act'
before the Court against the award alongwith the application for condonation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8307
2 AA-22-2026
of delay. The said application has been rejected, in view of the limitation.
3. Counsel for the appellant argued that the Court has committed an
error while rejecting the application for condonation of delay without
considering the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 34 of 'the Act'. He
submitted that the period ought to have been considered as per the provisions
of sub-Section 5 of Section 31 of the Act. The period of limitation would
start when the signed copy of the award has been delivered to the parties. He
argued that copy of the award was not delivered to him by the Arbitrator on
15/3/2024.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order
and submitted that the appellant was very much present on the said date and,
therefore, it has to be presumed that copy was delivered to him on 15/3/2024
itself. Therefore, the application under Section 34 of the Act was not filed
within the limitation period.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the issue before
us is "whether the appellant was present on the date when the award was
passed and whether the copy was delivered to him by authorities as required
under section 31(5) of the Act."
6. To appreciate the aforesaid, the order-sheet dated 15/3/2024 of the
Arbitrator is reproduced as under:-
Shri Paresh Joshi, counsel for the claimant, along with
the claimant.
Shri Ronak Jain, counsel for the respondents.
Award passed and delivered. Signed copies of the
award were delivered to the parties.
The case is now closed.
7. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order-sheet of the arbitrator, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:8307
3 AA-22-2026
pellucid that the presence of the consel for the claimant alongwith the
claimant is marked, however, the presence of the respondent/present
appellant is not mentioned in the order dated 15/3/2024. Only the name of
his counsel/Shri Ronak Jain is mentioned in the order-sheet. It is further
mentioned that "award passed and delivered". Signed copies of the order
were delivered to the parties. As per the provisions of Section 31(5) of the
Act, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy to each party.
From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is axomatic that the presence of the present
appellant/respondent was not recorded and the copy of the award was not
delivered to them. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act has to be read
alongwith Section 31(5) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would count
from the date when signed copy of the award is delivered to the appellant(s).
The aforesaid aspect have not been considered while rejecting the application
for condonation of delay.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The Court
is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh keeping
in view the provisions of Sections 34 and 31(5) of the Act.
8. With the aforesaid, present appeal is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
