Expressing strong concern over the growing tendency of government organisations to challenge arbitral awards belatedly and lose cases on limitation despite possibly having good merits, the Delhi High Court has held that a scanned signed copy of an arbitral award sent by email by the arbitrator can constitute valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if the authenticity of that communication is not disputed and that mode of communication had been used during the arbitral proceedings. Once such delivery is made, limitation under Section 34(3) starts from that date itself, and cannot be postponed on the ground of internal departmental approvals, movement of files, or the award not reaching the “competent authority.”
Observing that the Government, being the largest litigant, must put its house in order, take corrective measures, and act against erring officers responsible for such delays, the Court directed the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice to constitute a high-level committee to examine these shortcomings, including the possibility of departmental enquiries, so that delays in filing objections to arbitral awards can be curtailed and public money is not wasted.
The Court further reaffirmed that the outer limit under Section 34(3) is absolute. Referring to Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. [(2001) 8 SCC 470] and My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Faridabad Implements (P) Ltd. [(2025) 6 SCC 481], it held that after expiry of the prescribed three months plus the additional thirty days, the Court has no power to condone delay, because the words “but not thereafter” expressly bar any further extension. Applying this position, the Court held that the petition having been filed long after expiry of both the basic limitation period and the additional condonable period, and was clearly barred by limitation.
Also Read SC Seeks Police Response on Plea by Supreme Court Lawyer Alleging Assault, Threats to Withdraw FIR
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that explained that Sections 31(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 form an integrated statutory scheme. Section 31(5) deals with delivery of the signed copy of the award, and Section 34(3) ties the start of limitation to the date on which the party “had received the arbitral award.” According to the Court, this means limitation begins only when the signed copy is delivered in the manner contemplated by Section 31(5), because delivery is a statutory safeguard to ensure certainty about when limitation starts.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that once valid delivery has taken place, limitation cannot be postponed because of a party’s internal file movement, approvals, or administrative hierarchy. The statute does not wait for the award to reach the officer competent to sanction litigation, nor does it make the limitation period dependent on internal departmental processing.
The Court found that the record clearly showed that on 21.08.2023, the Sole Arbitrator emailed a scanned signed copy of the award to both parties and their counsel, and specifically recorded that this was being done in compliance with Section 31(5). ESIC did not dispute the authenticity of this email or deny that the attachment was a scanned signed copy of the award.
Rejecting ESIC’s argument that only a physical hard copy could trigger limitation, the Court held that Section 31(5) does not prescribe any mandatory mode of delivery such as physical dispatch alone. Since the arbitrator himself sent a scanned signed copy through the same mode of communication used during the arbitral proceedings, and the authenticity of that communication was never questioned, the statutory requirement of delivery stood satisfied.
Also Read Delhi High Court Suspends DHJS Officer Vinay Singhal Pending Contemplated Disciplinary Proceedings
The Court also noted that ESIC’s own affidavit did not help its case. The affidavit showed that the office of the Chief Engineer became aware of the award on Nov 22, 2023 and then began internal steps for approvals, engagement of counsel, and collection of the hard copy. The Court held that even if this timeline was accepted, it only reflected ESIC’s internal administrative movement after the award had already been validly delivered on Aug 21, 2023, which was irrelevant for computing limitation under Section 34(3).
The Court further rejected the plea that the award had been sent to a person who was not the “competent authority.” It observed that communications from the arbitral tribunal had throughout been exchanged through the same email address during the arbitration proceedings. Having accepted that mode of communication during the proceedings, ESIC could not later argue that delivery of the award through the same channel was invalid. The Court said a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath.
The Court also recorded that the award email was not sent only to one officer, but was simultaneously sent to the learned counsel representing the parties as well. The fact of receipt was never denied. The Court therefore held that the plea that the communication did not reach the “competent authority” within ESIC’s internal hierarchy could not delay the commencement of limitation under Section 34(3).
Briefly, a petition was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the Chief Engineer, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, challenging an arbitral award dated Aug 19, 2023. Along with the petition, ESIC also filed an application seeking condonation of 22 days’ delay in filing the Section 34 challenge. The respondent, Enarch Consultants Pvt Ltd., opposed the application and argued that the petition was not merely delayed, but was barred by limitation under Section 34(3) itself.
The respondent’s case was that the Sole Arbitrator had already sent a scanned signed copy of the arbitral award by email on Aug 21, 2023 to the parties and their counsel, and therefore limitation started running from that date. It was also argued that even the initial filing before the Registry was non-est because it suffered from foundational defects and could not stop limitation from running. On the other hand, ESIC argued that limitation could begin only when it received the arbitral award in terms of Section 31(5), which according to it happened only on Jan 03, 2024 when the signed hard copy was received.
