Delhi High Court Dismisses Arbitration Appeal | Delivery Of Signed Award To Authorized Representative Held Valid Under Section 31(5)
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitral award, holding that the delivery of a signed copy of the award to the authorized representative of the appellant constituted valid service under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court affirmed that the delivery of the award was legally effective on the date it was received by the authorized representative via email, and that the delay in subsequently filing an application under Section 34 of the Act rendered the application time-barred. Consequently, the Court upheld the earlier order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
The appeal arose from an arbitration proceeding concerning a construction contract dated 26.02.2010 for the development of 826 dwelling units for the armed forces in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. The contract, awarded to the appellant, was terminated by the respondent, Union of India, on 31.03.2016, citing a breach of Clause 48 of the General Conditions of Contract. Simultaneously, the appellant rescinded the contract on grounds including delay in issuing time extensions, illegal deductions from RA bills, non-payment for extra works, and failure to issue a completion certificate.
Following the termination, the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No. 208/2017 under Section 11 of the Act. On 22.02.2018, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court. After hearing both parties, the Arbitrator passed an award dated 16.10.2023 in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 25,98,58,132.05 along with 7% interest per annum from the date of the Statement of Claim until the date of the award. The interest amounted to Rs. 9,12,99,196.86, culminating in a total award of Rs. 35,11,57,328.91. The award stipulated a 30-day period for compliance, after which a 9% annual interest rate would apply.
On 30.09.2023, the Arbitral Tribunal informed both parties that the award was ready and requested each party to submit a Rs. 500 non-judicial stamp paper by 05.10.2023. The award was pronounced on 16.10.2023 via a virtual hearing attended by both parties. The Tribunal recorded the proceedings in a procedural order and circulated the minutes of the hearing. During the hearing, three sets of the award were prepared—two printed on non-judicial stamp paper and one on plain paper as the office copy. The award was signed during the virtual hearing and was emailed later that day to the parties.
On 16.10.2023, the appellant's authorized representative, Mr. Rama Varma Ch., acknowledged receipt of the scanned signed award via email. However, the appellant later contended that the award was not received by the party itself, claiming that Mr. Varma was no longer an employee since June 2023.
The appellant approached the Arbitrator's office on 09.03.2024 seeking a copy of the award. Subsequently, on 21.05.2024, the appellant filed an application under Section 34 to challenge the award. The Single Judge dismissed the application on the grounds of limitation, concluding that valid delivery had occurred on 16.10.2023.
During the appeal hearing on 03.12.2024, the appellant asserted that the award was only received on 09.03.2024 and that the prior receipt by Mr. Varma did not constitute valid delivery. An additional affidavit dated 05.01.2025 from Mr. Avva Sita Rama Rao, Managing Director of the appellant, reiterated that Mr. Varma was unauthorized post-June 2023 and that the award had not been delivered in accordance with Section 31(5).
The respondent opposed the appeal, arguing that Mr. Varma had consistently acted as the authorized signatory, filed affidavits, corresponded with the tribunal, and participated in the virtual pronouncement of the award. The respondent provided documentary evidence, including emails, minutes of proceedings, and the Vakalatnama signed by Mr. Varma.
The Division Bench examined the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, observing “After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party."
The Court noted "The legal requirement under Section 31(5) of the Act is the delivery of a copy of the award signed by the members of the Arbitral Tribunal/Arbitrator, and not any copy of the award."
Citing various precedents, the Court held "The term ‘signed copy’ means either a copy of the award bearing original signature or a duly authenticated/certified copy of the signed copy of the award by the Arbitral Tribunal or the Arbitral Institution administering the arbitration."
Referring to the participation in the virtual hearing, the Court stated "The award was signed in the presence of the representatives of both the parties during the course of the virtual hearing."
Regarding the delivery of the award, the Court remarked "It is the obligation of the Arbitral Tribunal to ensure delivery of the signed copy to the parties."
Concerning the involvement of Mr. Varma, the Court recorded “The contention of the Appellant that Mr. Rama Varma Ch. was not authorized to represent the Appellant cannot be accepted as it appears to be an afterthought."
The Court further observed "A valid delivery of the signed copy of the Award was made to the Authorized Representative of the Appellant, which is acknowledged by way of an e-mail addressed to the Arbitral Tribunal and copied to the Managing Director of the Appellant."
In relation to technological formats, the Court stated, "A signed copy of the award can be delivered electronically in accordance with Section 31(5) of the Act provided that the signed copy of the award attached to the electronic communication is duly authenticated."
Addressing the appellant’s affidavit, the Court noted, “Although the Additional Affidavit states that the said e-mail may have been missed by the Appellant, the same would amount to delivery of the signed copy of the Award."
The Division Bench held that the delivery of the arbitral award complied with Section 31(5) of the Act. The judgment stated, "The delivery of the signed copy of the Award by the learned Arbitral Tribunal is held to be a valid delivery in compliance with Section 31(5) of the Act."
Accordingly, the Court concluded, "As there is no infirmity with the impugned order, the present Appeal is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No orders as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay Tripathi, Mr. Akshay Joshi, Mr. Shravanth Shanker, Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Advocates for the appellant.
For the Respondents: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Ms. Archana Surve, Government Pleader, Mr. Zubin Singh, and Mr. Aakash Mishra, Advocates.
Case Title: Kristal Vision Projects Private Limited vs Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4245-DB
Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 206/2024
Bench: Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice Tejas Karia
[Read/Download order]
