Delay In Filing Objections Excused Where Arbitral Tribunal Fails To Provide Signed Award: HP High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held on 19 March that a party cannot be held responsible for delay in filing objections where the arbitral tribunal fails to furnish a signed copy of its award, despite specific requests.

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while condoning a 16-day delay in filing objections in the dispute between the Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla, and Ceigall India Limited, observed:

"This Court is of the considered view that the learned Arbitral Tribunal should have ensured that a signed copy of the Award was provided to the applicant, which it failed to do...in the peculiar facts of this case, it cannot be said that the filing of the objections by the applicant beyond three months is completely attributable to the negligence on the part of the applicant."

An arbitral award, dated 4 July 2025, was passed in favour of Ceigall India Limited. The Chief Engineer received only a photocopy on 15 July 2025. Since a signed copy was not provided, he requested one from the Tribunal on 19 September 2025, and an attested copy was finally received on 1 October 2025. Objections to the award were thereafter filed on 31 October 2025.

The Chief Engineer then approached the Court under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking extension of limitation beyond the prescribed three months (extendable by 30 days).

Ceigall India Limited opposed the plea, arguing that administrative delays could not justify condonation and that objections could have been filed based on the photocopy.

The Court held that the Tribunal's failure to supply a signed copy was a material factor in the delay. While limitation provisions must be applied strictly, the Highway Division actively communicated with the tribunal before the initial period expired. The Court further noted:

"In these circumstances, interest of justice demands that the extension of time be granted in favour of the applicant, so that it can agitate the matter on merit."

Finding that the delay was due to procedural deficiency on the Tribunal's part and not negligence of the applicant, the Court allowed the Highway Division to challenge the award on merits. It granted extension of time to file objections, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as costs to Ceigall India Limited.

Accordingly, it disposed of the case.

Appearances for petitioner (Chief Engineer, HP PWD National Highway Division, Shimla): Advocates Vaibhav Kanwar.

Appearances for respondent (M/s Ceigall India Limited): Advocates Meenal Garg, Sative Chauhan.