Supreme Court holds delivery of award to non‑party official does not start limitation under Section 34

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan heard the civil appeal arising from the Calcutta High Court's order which had allowed a first motion appeal filed by the State and held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not time‑barred. The appeal concerned whether delivery of a signed xerox copy of an arbitral award to an authorised representative who was not a “party” to the arbitration triggered the three‑month limitation for seeking setting aside of the award.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court. The Court held that, for the purpose of Section 34(3) and Section 31(5) of the Act, limitation begins only when a signed copy of the award is delivered to the “party” as defined under Section 2(1)(h) — not when it is handed to an agent or official who did not have authority to take the final decision on whether to challenge the award. The Court noted the High Court’s observation that “limitation under Section 34(3) would start running from the date on which the party applying for setting aside of the arbitral award received a signed copy of the award from the Arbitral Tribunal.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: Background

An arbitral award dated 12.11.2013 was rendered in favour of the appellant, M/s Motilal Agarwala. A xerox copy of the signed award was collected on 12.11.2013 by an Assistant Engineer who had attended arbitration proceedings on behalf of the State. Execution proceedings were later initiated by the award‑holder, and the State filed a Section 34 petition on 20.03.2014 challenging the award. The District Court held the Section 34 application time‑barred and dismissed Miscellaneous Case No.12/2014. The State succeeded in the High Court, which set aside the District Court order on the view that the signed copy had not been served on the Secretary, Irrigation & Waterways Department or the Executive Engineer — officials who could be regarded as the “party” within the meaning of the Act — and that a copy delivered to an Assistant Engineer did not commence the limitation period.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the authorised representative who had full knowledge of the proceedings had received the signed copy and that limitation therefore commenced from 12.11.2013. The State maintained that the authorised representative was not a “party” under Section 2(1)(h) and that limitation had not begun. The Supreme Court examined Section 31 and Section 34, and applied this Court’s prior decisions including Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and ARK Builders, and Benarsi Krishna Committee, to hold that delivery must be to a person who, in a large organisation or government department, is in a position to understand the award and take a decision on challenge. The Court concluded that the Assistant Engineer who received the xerox copy was not such a “party”; therefore the Section 34 petition was not barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed and the Supreme Court directed that the District Court should hear and dispose of the Section 34 application on merits preferably within six months from communication of the order.

Case Details: Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No.4480 OF 2016 (Reported as 2025 INSC 1062) Case Title: M/s Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Advocate