Gujarat High Court Rejects Delayed Challenge To Arbitral Award Over No Plea Of Non-Delivery Of Signed Copy

The Gujarat High Court recently observed that a party challenging an arbitral award cannot seek to overcome limitation by claiming that it came to know of the award during execution proceedings, if its Section 34 application does not contain a clear and categorical plea that the signed copy of the award had never been delivered to it as required under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D.N. Ray made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act against an order rejecting a challenge to an arbitral award as time-barred.

“In absence of any categorical statement made by the applicant about the non-delivery or non-receipt of the arbitral award, the contention based on the affixation of process in execution case is neither here nor there,” the court observed.

The dispute arose from an arbitral award dated October 7, 2021 passed on a claim filed by TJSB Sahakari Co-operative Bank Ltd. The award fixed joint and several liability on Darshana Bhupendra Parekh and other respondents for the repayment of an outstanding loan.

Parekh filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act on January 20, 2026, seeking to set aside the award. In the application, she stated that the award was not within her knowledge earlier and that she came to know about it only after notices in execution proceedings were affixed at her premises and thereafter obtained copies of the award and related documents.

The Commercial Court, by order dated January 23, 2026, rejected the application as barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act, holding that the challenge had been filed beyond the prescribed period.

Before the High Court, Parekh argued that under Section 31(5) of the Act, a signed copy of the arbitral award must be delivered to each party, and the limitation for filing a Section 34 application would begin only from the date on which such copy is received. She submitted that the award had not been served upon her and that limitation should, therefore, be computed from the date she allegedly received the award after execution proceedings were initiated.

The bench, however, noted that a perusal of the Section 34 application showed that although the appellant had challenged the award on several grounds, she had not made any categorical statement that the signed copy of the arbitral award had never been delivered to her.

The court observed that a vague assertion that the award was not within the applicant's knowledge could not substitute a specific plea of non-delivery of the signed award, which was necessary to invoke the benefit of limitation starting from the date of receipt.

Referring to the record, the bench noted that notices in execution proceedings had been affixed at the appellant's premises in 2024 and 2025, and the Commercial Court had found that the Section 34 application was filed only after the execution proceedings had progressed.

The High Court also recorded that the main borrower was the appellant's brother, who had appeared before the arbitrator and had made statements on her behalf, a fact that was not disputed.

Holding that the appellant had failed to plead non-delivery of the signed award and had approached the court only after execution proceedings had advanced, the bench found no reason to interfere with the Commercial Court's order and dismissed the appeal.