Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Apex Encon Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Padmavati Nekkanti, filed appeals against a common order dated 16th July 2014 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The Single Judge had dismissed four arbitration petitions filed by the appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the ground that they were barred by limitation. The dispute arose out of an arbitral award dated 21st March 2013. The appellants contended that the award was not served on them in accordance with Section 31(5) of the Act, as it was allegedly sent by registered post on 1st April 2013 to their corporate office address, which they claimed was not their correct address. They argued that they only became aware of the award on 2nd May 2013 when they received a copy from the arbitrator's office. The respondents, L & T Finance Ltd. and the sole arbitrator, argued that the award was validly served at the address provided in the arbitration agreement and that the appellants had received it. The court examined the provisions of Section 31(5) and Section 34 of the Act. It noted that the award was sent by registered post to the appellants' corporate office address, which was the address mentioned in the arbitration agreement and used throughout the proceedings. The court held that this constituted valid service under Section 31(5). The court also observed that the appellants had filed the Section 34 petitions on 2nd August 2013, which was beyond the three-month limitation period from 1st April 2013, and the 30-day grace period had also expired. Therefore, the petitions were time-barred. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Single Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Limitation - Service of Award - Section 31(5) and Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court considered whether the arbitral award was validly served on the appellants. The appellants contended that the award was not served in accordance with Section 31(5) as it was sent by registered post to their corporate office address, which they claimed was not their correct address. The court held that the award was served at the correct address as per the arbitration agreement and that the appellants had received it. The court also noted that the appellants had filed a petition under Section 34 beyond the limitation period of three months plus the 30-day grace period, and thus the petitions were time-barred. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the arbitral award was served in accordance with Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the arbitration petitions under Section 34 were barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The appeals are dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 16th July 2014 dismissing the arbitration petitions as time-barred is upheld.
Law Points
- Limitation for challenging arbitral award
- Service of award under Section 31(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Constructive service
- Section 34 limitation period
