"Noted Thanks" Acknowledgement Of Arbitral Award On WhatsApp Group Is Acceptance: Delhi High Court Dismisses Section 34 Petition As Time-Barred

The Delhi High Court dismissed a Section 34 objection petition as time-barred, holding that a party cannot bypass the strict limitation period under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 after actively acknowledging and implementing an arbitral award shared on a WhatsApp group.

It was observed that the petitioner’s text response of "Noted thanks" followed by bilateral discussions on executing gift deeds and transferring properties demonstrated clear acquiescence and consensus.

Invoking the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court ruled that the subsequent technical challenges to the award—such as missing arbitrator signatures and lack of formal claims—were merely afterthoughts to evade contractual obligations once execution proceedings were initiated by the counter-party.

The Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed, "The material placed on record unmistakably demonstrates that immediately after the Award was uploaded in the WhatsApp group created for resolution of the disputes, the Petitioner acknowledged receipt thereof by responding "Noted thanks". Such acknowledgement was not a mere formal response but was followed by continuous discussions amongst the parties regarding the implementation of the Award." 

Advocate Amit Bhagat appeared for the Petitioner, while Advocate Niyati Kohli appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts

The execution petition was instituted under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking the enforcement of an interim arbitral award. Concurrently, the petitioner preferred an objection petition under Section 34 of the Act, seeking to set aside the said interim award, which contained directions regarding two immovable properties. Since both petitions arose out of the same interim award and involved interconnected questions of fact and law, they were heard together by the Court. The Court deemed it appropriate to decide the objection petition first, as the outcome of the execution proceedings was contingent upon the validity of the challenge under Section 34.

The parties to the dispute were brothers who jointly carried out their family business. In order to divide certain family and corporate properties, they executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) delineating the manner of division. However, disputes arose regarding the terms of the MoU, and it was not acted upon. To resolve their differences, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement, referring their disputes to a three-member arbitral tribunal specifically named therein. The tribunal conducted a meeting through video conferencing, heard the parties, and subsequently passed the impugned interim award.

Contentions of the Parties

It was submitted by the Petitioner that the arbitral tribunal passed the impugned award without seeking any statement of claims or counterclaims from the parties, which was in direct violation of the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Petitioner said that the award was entirely bereft of any reasoning and was passed in a mechanical manner without any proper application of mind, running contrary to the statutory mandate requiring a reasoned award. It argued that the tribunal exceeded its authority by adjudicating upon and directing the transfer of ownership rights in properties co-owned by third parties who were neither signatories to the arbitration agreement nor parties to the arbitral proceedings.

The petitioner submitted that he only received an unsigned copy of the award via a mobile messaging application group and became aware of the signed version only upon being served with the execution petition.

Per contra, the Respondents submitted that the objection petition was not maintainable as it was filed after an inordinate delay of over three years from the passing of the award, and it was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay. It was submitted that the petitioner had full knowledge of the award as a copy was shared on a family messaging group, which was actively received and acknowledged by the petitioner at that time.

The Respondents submitted that the petitioner and relevant third parties not only accepted the award but also actively took steps to enforce its terms and reaped benefits thereunder. Having derived advantages from the award, the petitioner was legally estopped from challenging its validity.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that its statutory jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was extremely circumscribed, as settled by an evolving line of precedents from the Supreme Court of India.

The Court emphasized that the issue of limitation went to the very root of the maintainability of the objection petition, and thus proceeded to evaluate whether the application fell within the mandatory timelines prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. It noted that the statutory proviso, specifically the expression "but not thereafter," placed an absolute embargo on the Court’s power to condone any delay beyond the extended period of thirty days.

The Court rejected the petitioner's principal contention that the limitation period never commenced due to the non-delivery of a physically signed copy of the award. It was observed that immediately upon the award being uploaded to a mobile messaging group created for dispute resolution, the petitioner explicitly acknowledged its receipt and actively engaged in subsequent deliberations regarding its execution. The material on record conclusively established that the parties had engaged in continuous, bilateral discussions concerning the preparation of gift deeds, transfer documents, bank clearances, and the shifting of movable properties.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the arbitral proceedings were mutual and consensual, meaning the resulting award carried a higher degree of sanctity and could not be unilaterally resiled from simply due to a subsequent change of heart.

The Court further observed that the petitioner's technical objections—such as the award being signed by only two out of three arbitrators and the directions affecting a third-party co-owner—deserved outright rejection. Since the petitioner possessed full knowledge of these facts for over two years and failed to approach the arbitral tribunal for a signed copy or raise any grievance, these technical pleas were deemed an afterthought to obstruct execution. It was also noted that the affected third party had participated in the arbitration, accepted the outcome, and chosen not to prefer any independent challenge.

"Tested upon that anvil and in view of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Impugned Award was not the outcome of a contested adjudicatory process but was rendered upon the consensus and mutual understanding arrived at between the parties. The Arbitration Agreement itself records the parties' intention to amicably resolve their inter se disputes through the named Arbitrators, and the material placed before this Court, particularly the contemporaneous WhatsApp exchanges and the conduct of the parties after the passing of the Impugned Award, clearly establishes that the Impugned Award embodied the mutually agreed terms of settlement", the Court held.

Ultimately, the Court observed that the objection petition was completely unsupported by any application for condonation of delay and was conspicuously silent on explaining the prolonged inaction. The petitioner’s conduct was found to be wholly inconsistent with the core object of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which seeks to ensure finality and the expeditious enforcement of arbitral awards.

Consequently, the Court held the objection petition to be hopelessly barred by limitation, rendering it unnecessary to examine the merits of the challenge, and thereby cleared all legal impediments to enforcing the interim award under the companion execution proceedings.

Cause Title: Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5380]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Amit Bhagat and Aarzo Raj

Respondents: Advocate Niyati Kohli, Advocate Rishabh Parikh, Advocate Pratham Vir Agarwal

Click here to read/download the Judgment