Unsigned Copy Of Arbitral Award Sent By Opposing Party Cannot Trigger Limitation To Challenge It: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the three-month limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only when a party receives a duly signed copy of the award, not when the opposing party forwards an unsigned copy.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed, “Given the above, it follows that an unsigned draft, photocopy or other copy forwarded by the opposite party cannot, merely because it conveys the contents of the award, substitute for delivery and receipt of the signed copy under Section 31(5). The question is not whether the party knew of the award, but whether the signed award was delivered to and received by him in the manner contemplated by the Act.”

The court made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by P.K. Krishnamurthy, who had secured an arbitral award against C.V. James, proprietor of Sukhodaya Hospital, Kanjirappally. The award was passed in Krishnamurthy's favour on March 26, 2024, after which James challenged it under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Krishnamurthy argued that the challenge was time-barred because James had received an unsigned copy on April 8, 2024. James maintained that he received the signed copy from the arbitrator only on June 23, 2024.

Before the High Court, Krishnamurthy argued that James knew the award's contents despite the absence of the arbitrator's signature. James countered that the April 8 copy had been sent by Krishnamurthy's counsel and relied on the arbitrator's proceedings to show that he had not collected the award earlier.

The court examined Section 31, which requires a signed copy of the award to be delivered to each party, and Section 34(3), which prescribes the limitation period for challenging an award.

Relying on Supreme Court decisions in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, State of Maharashtra v. Ark Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., it held that knowledge of an award's contents cannot replace receipt of a signed copy in the manner prescribed by law.

The court also rejected Krishnamurthy's argument that James should have invoked Section 33, observing that the relevant period under that provision was likewise linked to receipt of the award in accordance with the Act.

Holding that limitation began on June 23, 2024, when James received the signed award, the court ruled that his challenge was filed within the prescribed period. It therefore upheld the lower court's decision to reject Krishnamurthy's limitation objection.

Considering the parties' ages and the circumstances of the case, the court directed the Additional District Court-IV, Kottayam, to dispose of the matter at the earliest and, in any event, within two months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

For petitioner (P.K. Krishnamurthy): Advocates S. Murali, Aslam K.K.

For respondent (C.V. James): Advocates Aype Joseph