Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Begins On Delivery Of Signed Award Copy To Party: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award begins only from the date on which a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party, setting aside a Commercial Court order that had dismissed a challenge as time-barred.

A division bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi ruled that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.

“As per the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Act, it is the duty of the Arbitrator to deliver a signed copy to each party. From the aforesaid order-sheet, it is axomatic that the presence of the present appellant/respondent was not recorded and the copy of the award was not delivered to them. The provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act has to be read along with Section 31(5) of the Act and, therefore, the limitation would count from the date when signed copy of the award is delivered to the appellant(s). The aforesaid aspect have not been considered while rejecting the application for condonation of delay,” the court observed,

The court was hearing an appeal under Section 37 (appeal) against a December 12, 2025 order of the Commercial Court at Indore, which had dismissed an application for condonation of delay and rejected a Section 34 challenge to an arbitral award dated March 15, 2024.

The appellants contended that the limitation had been wrongly computed, as no signed copy of the award was delivered to them. The respondent argued that delivery should be presumed since the appellants were present when the award was passed.

Examining the arbitrator's order sheet, the High Court noted that while the presence of the claimant and counsel for both sides was recorded, the presence of the appellants themselves was not.

Although the order sheet stated that the award was “passed and delivered” and that signed copies were delivered, the court held that it did not establish compliance with the requirement of delivery to the party under Section 31(5).

Holding that limitation under Section 34(3) would run only from the date of delivery of the signed award, the court set aside the order and directed the Commercial Court to reconsider the delay condonation application afresh.

For Petitioner (Late Smt. Navlibai through legal representatives): Advocate Arpit Kumar Oswal.

For Respondent (Motilal Khatri): Advocates Girish Patwardhan, Paresh Joshi.