Delivery Of Award Copy To Power Of Attorney Holder Is Due Compliance With Section 31(5) A&C Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed an Appeal against the District Judge's Order, which dismissed an Application under Section 34(2) of the A&C Act, seeking condonation of delay of 287 days in filing the Petition.
The Delhi High Court held that the delivery of copy of the Award to the Power of Attorney Holder is a due compliance with Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Court held thus in an Appeal filed against the Order of the District Judge, which dismissed an Application under Section 34(2) of the A&C Act, seeking condonation of delay of 287 days in filing the Petition.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “While it is true that Section 31(5) of the A&C Act requires the Arbitral Tribunal to deliver a signed copy of the Award to the party, however, if from the facts it is apparent that the party has a copy of the Award delivered through her Power of Attorney, further proof of such delivery need not be insisted upon. The delivery of a copy of the Award to the Power of Attorney holder, who has also represented the party in the arbitral proceedings, shall be a due compliance with Section 31(5) of the A&C Act.”
The Bench emphasised that the whole object of the A&C Act is to ensure expeditious adjudication of the disputes between the parties through the alternate dispute resolution mechanism and hence, the said object cannot be defeated by a party raising a plea of non-receipt of a copy of the Award to seek endless extension of the limitation period and to challenge the same at a later stage beyond the limitation period.
Advocate Shailendra Dahiya represented the Appellant while Advocates Sanjay Katyal and Ritika Bansal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant filed a Section 34 Petition challenging the Arbitral Award passed by a Sole Arbitrator. The said Arbitrator was appointed by the High Court vide an Order passed on an Application filed under Section 11 of the A&C Act by the Appellant’s father, to adjudicate the disputes arising between the parties in relation to a Collaboration Agreement.
Later, the subsequent transferees were also added as parties to the arbitration proceedings. As Section 34 Petition was filed beyond the period prescribed in Section 34(3) A&C Act, the Appellant filed an Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 287 days in filing the same. The said Application was dismissed by the Trial Court and hence, the Appellant was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, noted, “… it is evident that the appellant never protested on the implementation of the Award. She, in fact, complained of delay in its implementation. Though this correspondence states that it is ‘without prejudice’, this reservation cannot be read to mean a reservation of the appellant to the implementation of the Arbitral Award or as a right to later challenge the same.”
The Court added that, having accepted the Award, the Appellant cannot now be allowed to challenge the same belatedly or beyond the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the A&C Act, which would defeat the very object of the A&C Act.
“As far as the reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the orders passed by the Supreme Court extending the period of limitation is concerned, we again do not find any merit”, it further said.
The Court observed that the plea of the Appellant for extension of benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, cannot come to the aid of the Appellant.
“For purposes of attracting Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the earlier proceedings must be filed within the period of limitation as it is only the period for which the said proceedings are bona fidely prosecuted, that can be excluded”, it also enunciated.
The Court explained that if the initial proceedings are itself filed beyond the period of limitation, Section 14 of the Limitation Act would not come to the aid of such a party as the subsequent proceedings, even after extending the period of limitation under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, shall still remain barred by limitation.
“In the present case, the appellant is seeking the benefit of the pendency of the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the A&C Act in the Execution Petition. The same was filed on 04.10.2021, that is beyond the maximum condonable period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act. … we find no merit in the present appeal”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title- Kiran Suran v. Satish Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2365-DB)
