February 27, 2026: The High Court of Chhattisgarh has clarified an important point under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court ruled that the time limit to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 starts only when a signed copy of the award is delivered to the concerned party. Simply announcing the award is not enough.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru in ARBA No. 4 of 2023.
The case began when a buyer purchased a flat in Bhilai from a developer through an agreement dated 19 December 2007. The buyer claimed that even after paying the full amount, the flat had major construction defects and lacked promised facilities. This dispute led to consumer proceedings, which ended in 2018 with a settlement before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
At the same time, the dispute had also gone to arbitration. In 2016, an ex parte arbitral award directed the buyer to pay more than ₹4 lakh with 18 percent annual interest to the developer.
The buyer later said that he never received a signed copy of this award, as required under Section 31(5) of the Act. He stated that he came to know about the award only in July 2019 during execution proceedings.
After learning about the award, the buyer filed an application under Section 34 to set it aside. However, the District Judge in Durg dismissed the application. The court calculated the limitation period from the date of the award in August 2016 and held that the application was filed too late.
The matter then went to the High Court.
The High Court examined Section 34(3), which says that an application to set aside an award must be filed within three months from the date on which the party “had received” the award. An additional thirty days can be granted if there is sufficient reason for delay.
The Court explained that this provision must be read along with Section 31(5), which requires that a signed copy of the arbitral award must be delivered to each party.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Benarasi Krishna Committee v. Karmyogi Shelters Pvt. Ltd.. In that case, the Supreme Court held that limitation begins only when a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party itself. Without proper service, the limitation period does not start.
The High Court found that the lower court had not properly checked whether the signed award was actually served on the buyer. Instead, it simply counted limitation from the date of the award.
The Court said this approach was not correct under the law. While Section 34(3) provides a strict time limit and courts cannot extend it beyond the extra thirty days, the starting point of limitation depends on when the signed award is received.
Since there was no clear finding about delivery of the signed copy, dismissing the case on limitation grounds was not legally proper.
The High Court set aside the order dated 5 November 2022 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Durg, and sent the matter back for fresh consideration on merits. The appeal was allowed.
Case Title : D.K. Bhuiya vs. A.K. Sinha
