MP HC: limitation to challenge an arbitral award can start from a certified copy the party obtained herself

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Indore Bench dismissed an appeal against the dismissal, as time-barred, of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to set aside an ex parte arbitral award. The appellant argued that since the Arbitral Tribunal never delivered a signed copy of the award to her under Section 31(5) — a mandatory requirement — the three-month limitation under Section 34(3) (extendable by 30 days) had never begun to run, relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers and State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders. The respondent countered that the appellant had herself obtained a certified copy of the award from the Tribunal's secretariat, and filed her Section 34 application 183 days after that, well beyond limitation.

Justice Vinay Saraf held that while Section 31(5) delivery is a substantive, mandatory requirement, its purpose is only to bring the award's contents to the party's knowledge; where the party independently procures and receives a certified copy, that knowledge is equally achieved, and limitation under Section 34(3) begins running from that date of receipt. Since the appellant did not act within three months (or the condonable further 30 days) of receiving the certified copy, her application was rightly dismissed as time-barred. This is a Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling, binding within that State, not a Supreme Court precedent.