Arbitration Act | Limitation To Challenge Award Commences From Date Certified Copy Is Obtained If Signed Copy Not Delivered Under Section 31(5): Madhya Pradesh High Court

"The provisions of the Section 31(5) cannot be interpreted in a manner that if the Arbitral Tribunal has not delivered the signed copy of the award, then the award would not be enforceable in any case or no limitation would start to file the objections under Section 34 despite receipt of the certified copy and the party in default will enjoy the unlimited limitation." High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in a significant ruling pronounced on October 23, 2026, held that the period of limitation to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 commences from the date when an aggrieved party obtains a certified copy of the award, even if the Arbitral Tribunal failed to deliver a signed copy under Section 31(5).

A single bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed that Section 31(5) cannot be construed to confer an "unlimited limitation" on a defaulting party who has obtained the certified copy and acquired complete knowledge of the award.

The dispute arose after the respondent firm, M/s Sulabh Syntex, filed a claim before the Arbitration Board of Shrimant Maharaja Tukoji Rao Cloth Market Merchants Association, Indore, for recovery of unpaid dues amounting to Rs. 2,28,210 against the appellant proprietor. The Arbitral Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and passed an award on December 11, 2018, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2,27,710 along with interest and costs. Although the signed copy was not served on the appellant, she obtained a certified copy of the award on March 18, 2019, after learning of the proceedings through a notice issued in an execution case. The appellant subsequently filed an application under Section 34 to set aside the award after a gap of 183 days, which the 11th District Judge, Indore dismissed as time-barred.

The primary question before the court was whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 commences from the date a party obtains a certified copy of the arbitral award from the tribunal's secretariat when the signed copy was never formally delivered under Section 31(5). The court also considered whether non-delivery of the signed copy by the tribunal renders the award perpetually unenforceable under Section 36 of the Act.

Statutory Scheme Of Section 31(5) And Rigid Limitation Under Section 34(3)

The court meticulously examined the interplay between Section 31(5) and Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. Justice Saraf observed that while Section 31(5) mandates the delivery of a signed copy of the award to each party, Section 34(3) establishes a strict three-month timeline to initiate a challenge, extendable by an outer limit of only 30 days upon sufficient cause.

The court noted that Section 3(1) governs the deemed service of written communications, and Section 36(1) conditions the enforcement of an award on the expiry of the period prescribed for making an application under Section 34. Where a statute provides a rigid outer limit of limitation, parties cannot be permitted to expand it beyond statutory boundaries.

Distinguishing Precedents Mandating Delivery Of Signed Copy

The appellant had placed heavy reliance on leading Supreme Court authorities, including Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and Contractors, State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders Private Limited, Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel, and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited v. Navigant Technologies Private Limited. In those decisions, the apex court authoritatively held that delivery under Section 31(5) is a matter of substance that triggers the limitation periods under Section 33 and Section 34(3).

Justice Saraf acknowledged the settled principle that limitation ordinarily does not run if a party is not served with the signed copy by the Arbitral Tribunal. However, the bench distinguished those rulings on facts, pointing out that a distinct circumstance arises when the aggrieved party voluntarily applies for and obtains a certified copy from the tribunal.

Certified Copy Imparts Complete Notice And Knowledge Of Award

Endorsing the view taken by the Bombay High Court in Rahul v. Akola Janta Commercial Co-operative Bank Limited and the Chhattisgarh High Court in Union of India v. Bhola Prasad Agrawal and Lalkumar Patel v. Chief Engineer, the court held that the core object of Section 31(5) is to impart knowledge of the nature, effect, and import of the award.

Justice Saraf observed that whether a signed copy is delivered or a certified copy is obtained, the underlying objective of attributing knowledge of the contents of the award stands fully achieved. Once a party has the certified copy, they are fully equipped to challenge the award before a court.

"The purpose of the provision, of imparting knowledge to the party, as to the contents of the award, is achieved whether a signed copy is delivered or the certified copy of the signed award is obtained by the party."

No Unlimited Limitation For Inaction And Negligence

The bench firmly rejected the proposition that absence of formal delivery under Section 31(5) freezes limitation indefinitely and bars execution under Section 36. The court reasoned that an application under Section 34 can competently be preferred along with a certified copy of the arbitral award, leaving no impediment in the party's path to seek setting aside.

The court cautioned that accepting the appellant's argument would enable defaulting litigants to sit idle indefinitely and frustrate arbitral enforcement, which directly defeats the legislative intent of the Act.

"Once the certified copy is received and a party is aggrieved by the award and does not choose to file the application for setting aside the same within the limitation period prescribed by the law, then the party would have to suffer for the negligent inaction."

Rejection Of Delayed Challenge After 183 Days

Applying these principles to the factual matrix, the High Court held that the trial court committed no error in treating March 18, 2019—the date on which the appellant obtained the certified copy—as the starting point of limitation.

Because the appellant filed the Section 34 application after 183 days from the receipt of the certified copy, it exceeded the maximum permissible period of three months plus 30 days. The court held that the delay was incurable, rendering the application rightly barred by time.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order rejecting the Section 34 application as barred by limitation. The judgment establishes an important precedent that a party cannot rely on the non-delivery of a signed award under Section 31(5) to claim an indefinite period of limitation once they have acquired a certified copy of the award.

Date of Decision: 23 October 2026