News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 169 | 2026:CGHC:10217

February 27, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has ruled that the limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 begins only after a signed copy of the award is delivered to the concerned party. The Court made it clear that mere pronouncement of the award is not enough to trigger limitation.

Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the decision in ARBA No. 4 of 2023. The case arose after the appellant purchased a flat in Bhilai from a developer under an agreement dated 19 December 2007. The buyer alleged that even after paying the full sale consideration, the flat had serious construction defects and did not provide the promised amenities. The dispute led to consumer litigation, which ultimately concluded in 2018 with a settlement before the National Commission.

However, parallel to the consumer dispute, the matter had also gone to arbitration. An ex parte arbitral award dated 18 August 2016 directed the buyer to pay over ₹4 lakh with 18 percent annual interest to the developer. According to the buyer, he never received a signed copy of the award as required under Section 31(5) of the Act and only became aware of it during execution proceedings in July 2019.

After learning about the award, the buyer filed an application under Section 34 to set it aside. The District Judge, Durg, dismissed the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3). The court treated the limitation as running from the date of the award in 2016 and held that the delay could not be condoned.

On appeal, the High Court examined the statutory framework closely. Section 34(3) provides that an application to set aside an arbitral award must be filed within three months from the date on which the party “had received” the award, with a further grace period of thirty days if sufficient cause is shown. The Court emphasized that this provision must be read together with Section 31(5), which mandates delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Benarasi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 9 SCC 496, which held that limitation does not begin unless a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party itself. Without proper service in terms of Section 31(5), the statutory clock does not start running.

In this case, the High Court found that the lower court had not properly examined whether the signed award had actually been served on the appellant. Instead, it calculated limitation solely from the date of the award. The High Court held that such an approach was inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

While acknowledging that Section 34(3) prescribes a strict timeline and courts cannot extend it beyond the additional thirty days, the High Court stressed that the foundational issue is the date of receipt of the signed award. Without a clear finding on service, rejecting the application purely on limitation grounds was not legally sustainable.

The Court set aside the order dated 5 November 2022 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Durg, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the Section 34 application on merits, without insisting on delay. The appeal was allowed to that extent.

The ruling reinforces a crucial principle in arbitration law: the right to challenge an award cannot be defeated unless proper delivery of the signed award is established. For litigants and practitioners, the judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with Section 31(5) before invoking limitation under Section 34(3).

Case Reference : In ARBA No. 4 of 2023, D.K. Bhuiya S/o S.R. Bhuiya v. A.K. Sinha S/o M.P. Sinha, the appellant was represented by Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate, and the respondent by Mr. Punit Ruparel, Advocate.