MP High Court: Limitation To Challenge Arbitral Award Begins Only After Signed Copy Is Delivered

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reiterated that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot begin unless a signed copy of the award is delivered to the concerned party. Holding that procedural compliance under the law is mandatory and not a mere formality, the Court allowed an appeal filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and restored its challenge to an arbitral award.

Justice Deepak Khot passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by NHAI against an order of the District Judge, Sagar, which had refused to condone delay in filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The District Court had held that the challenge was barred by limitation.

Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Mohan Sausarkar argued that NHAI had never been served with a signed copy of the arbitral award as required under Section 31(5) of the Act. According to the appellant, it became aware of the award only on August 10, 2023, after which a certified copy was applied for and obtained on August 20, 2023. The Section 34 petition, along with an application seeking condonation of delay, was subsequently filed on October 31, 2023.

The High Court noted that there was no material on record to show that the signed copy of the award had ever been delivered to NHAI. Significantly, the respondents had not filed any counter affidavit disputing this assertion.

Examining the legal position, the Court relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments interpreting Sections 31(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Referring to Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, the Court observed that delivery of an arbitral award is "not a matter of mere formality" but "a matter of substance" because several limitation periods begin to run only after the award is received by a party.

The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in Benarsi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that "a signed copy of the Award has to be delivered to the party" and that delivery to a lawyer would not necessarily satisfy the statutory requirement.

Justice Khot further referred to a recent decision of a coordinate Bench in Ganpat v. Land Acquisition Officer and Sub Divisional Officer, where similar issues concerning non-delivery of arbitral awards had arisen. In that case too, the Court had held that litigants could not be deprived of their statutory remedy when authorities had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving signed copies of the award.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Court found that the District Judge had failed to examine whether the statutory requirement under Section 31(5) had been complied with. The Court observed that the fact of non-delivery was neither denied by the respondents nor verified by the lower court through the arbitrator's records.

Holding that the trial court had adopted an incorrect approach, Justice Khot said, "The period as provided under Section 34(3) of the Act of 1996 will reckon from the date when the signed copy of the order is received by the party."

The Court further held that since the signed copy had never been received by NHAI, the civil court had committed a "grave error of law" in rejecting the application seeking condonation of delay.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Judge's order dated April 1, 2024, and allowed NHAI's application under Section 34(3). The matter has now been remanded to the court below for fresh consideration on merits. The parties have been directed to appear before the District Judge on July 20, 2026.

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Santosh Kumar Jai & Others

Date of Order: June 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Deepak Khot