Delhi High Court Says Incomplete Address Cannot Prove Award Service, Rejects GAIL's Limitation Plea

The Delhi High Court on 14 October dismissed GAIL Gas Limited's petition challenging a trial court order that held Saraswati Concast Pvt. Ltd.'s objections to an arbitral award were within time, finding that postal delivery to a locality without the company's complete address did not establish service of the award.

Justice Ajay Digpaul held that the postal receipt's omission of the premises number from Saraswati Concast's registered-office address prevented the presumption of service from arising. The Bench observed:

“The presumption of service can arise only when the foundational requirement of proper addressing is established. The mere fact that an article was delivered at a locality cannot, by itself, establish delivery to a particular company when the address does not identify the premises at which that company is situated.”

The dispute arose from a Gas Sale Agreement dated 1 November 2011, under which GAIL agreed to supply 450 standard cubic metres of gas per day to Saraswati Concast's manufacturing unit in Sonipat, Haryana, from 15 January 2012 to 14 January 2017.

GAIL sought to recover Rs. 32,12,190 for unpaid gas supplies . In an award dated 24 March 2017, the sole arbitrator directed Saraswati Concast to pay the amount, along with interest and costs of Rs. 2.5 lakh .

The sole arbitrator dispatched the signed award by speed post on 24 March 2017, and GAIL claimed that the article was delivered the following day . GAIL subsequently initiated execution proceedings

Saraswati Concast received notice of the execution proceedings on 16 November 2017 and filed objections to the award on 13 December 2017. GAIL argued that the objections were time-barred because the limitation period began when the award was delivered in March 2017.

The trial court, by an order dated 9 October 2025, held that the objections were within time. It noted that Clause 24 of the agreement required notices and communications to be sent by registered post, whereas the arbitrator had dispatched the award by speed post. It also found that the postal receipt did not contain Saraswati Concast's complete address.

GAIL challenged the order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, arguing that the postal records established delivery to Saraswati Concast's registered office on 25 March 2017 and that the limitation period had consequently begun.

Saraswati Concast countered that the postal receipt omitted “26/2”, the premises number in its registered-office address, and that the delivery report did not establish receipt of the award by the company. It also argued that the High Court should not reassess the evidence in its supervisory jurisdiction.

The Court held that the central question was whether the award had been delivered to Saraswati Concast at its proper and complete address. Although the postal receipt mentioned the company's name and Shakti Nagar, it omitted the premises number “26/2”. The delivery report confirmed delivery of the postal article but did not establish that it reached the company's specific premises or was received by the company. It held:

“It is the premises number which identifies the particular flat, building or premises in Shakti Nagar at which the respondent's registered office is situated. Without this part of the address, the postal receipt does not identify the precise premises to which the communication was addressed.”

Further, the Bench held that the agreement's prescribed mode of service did not alter this conclusion. Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the trial court's order, it dismissed GAIL's petition and directed the trial court to proceed with Saraswati Concast's objections in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision that Saraswati Concast's objections to the arbitral award were within time.

Appearances for petitioner (GAIL Gas Limited): Advocates N. L. Ganapathi, Anaida Khan.

Appearances for respondent (Saraswati Concast Pvt. Ltd.): Advocates K. K. Aggarwal, Gayatri Aggarwal.