1. Introduction and Parties

The case involves the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) as the petitioner and Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd (MMOPL) as the respondent in a commercial arbitration dispute. MMRDA filed an interim application for condonation of a 14-day delay in challenging an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Dispute Background and Arbitral Award

The dispute culminated in an arbitral award dated August 29, 2023. Both parties subsequently filed applications under Section 33(1) of the Arbitration Act for corrections, and the final signed order was received on March 11, 2024. This delay was partially due to MMRDA's ongoing settlement efforts and changes in legal representation.

3. Respondent’s Objections to Condonation

The respondent argued that the limitation period commenced on February 26, 2024, when MMRDA's lawyers received an unsigned order. They emphasized that under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, the limitation period should run from the disposal date of the Section 33 application. The respondent cited several judgments to argue that unsigned orders suffice to trigger limitation.

4. Petitioner’s Stand on Signed Orders Requirement

The petitioner argued that the period should commence upon receipt of a signed order as mandated by Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, which requires awards to be signed by the tribunal. They supported this stance by referencing judgments from various high courts emphasizing the necessity of a signed award for clarity and finality.

Legal Provisions and Case Law Discussed

1. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
   • Section 34(3): Sets the 90-day limit for challenging arbitral awards, extendable by 30 days with sufficient cause.
2. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act:
   • Section 33(7): Requires compliance with Section 31 for corrected awards, mandating signed delivery.
3. Section 12(4) of the Limitation Act, 1963:
   • Discusses exclusions in time calculations when obtaining award copies.

Key Judgments Cited

• Ved Prakash Mithal v. Union of India: Limitation commencement for setting aside awards depends on disposal date.
• USS Alliance v. State of UP: Purpose-driven interpretation supports starting limitation from receiving a corrected, signed award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Section 31 requires a signed award for it to be final and enforceable, confirming that limitation should begin from the receipt of such a signed copy. The court interpreted procedural compliance as a strict requirement and condoned the delay based on the applicant’s due diligence and receipt date of the signed document.

Subjects:

• Arbitration Act, Limitation Law, Commercial Arbitration

• Arbitration, Condonation of Delay, Bombay High Court, Limitation Act, Commercial Disputes, Arbitral Award