Manipur High Court: Limitation Period in Government Arbitration Cases Begins When Award Is Received by Competent Authority Under Section 34 of A&C Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Manipur, Division Bench of Chief Justice M. Sundar and Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma held that, in arbitration matters involving government entities, the limitation period for filing a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 begins only when the award is received by the officer competent to decide on its challenge, and not merely upon its transmission by email or receipt by counsel. Allowing the State’s appeal, the Court set aside the order rejecting the plea for condonation of delay and directed the lower court to hear the petition on merits, noting that the Chief Engineer’s receipt of the award constituted the relevant starting point for limitation.
The case stemmed from a contract dated 12 June 2014 between the Public Works Department, Imphal, and M/S Keystone Infra Private Limited for the improvement of a road stretch from Bishnupur to Nungba, covering 89.52 kilometres. The project, valued at approximately Rs. 92.25 crores, was to be completed within 36 months. Following disputes between the parties, arbitration was invoked under the Special Conditions of Contract. A sole arbitrator constituted the Arbitral Tribunal, which, after full contest, delivered an award on 20 February 2023 in favour of the contractor for Rs. 96.16 crores. The State’s counterclaims were dismissed.
The State of Manipur, represented by the Chief Engineer of PWD, filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the award. However, this petition was filed with a delay of 11 days (later computed as 12 days). The Section 34 Court dismissed the condonation of delay (CoD) application on 4 July 2025, holding that the delay was beyond the statutory cap of 30 days. The Court determined the date of receipt of the award to be 14 March 2023, contrary to the State’s contention that the award was received on 5 April 2023 under cover of its counsel’s letter dated 14 March 2023.
The State appealed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arguing that the Section 34 Court erred in determining the date of receipt. The contractor, M/S Keystone Infra, argued that the soft copies of the award were emailed to both parties on 20 February 2023 and should be treated as the date of receipt.
The Division Bench recorded that "the bone of contention is, while the State contends that the award was received only on 05.04.2023, the contractor contends to the contrary, that soft copies of the award were emailed to both the claimant and the State on 20.02.2023." The Court noted that the Section 34 Court had construed the email as merely informative, stating that signed copies would be couriered, and therefore, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
The Bench observed that "in cases of Government, the award should be received by a person who is in full control of the arbitration proceedings and who is in a position to take a decision about assailing the award under Section 34 of the Act." The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/S Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (2025 INSC 1062), which reiterated the principle laid down in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 239. The Bench quoted paragraph 21 of the Motilal judgment, which held that the effective date of service of an award, in the case of a government entity, is when it is received by the competent authority capable of deciding whether to challenge it.
The Bench stated that "the Chief Engineer of PWD is the ‘party’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(h) of the Act" and that the award was received by him on 05.04.2023. It further observed that "the Section 34 Court disbelieving 05.04.2023 acknowledgment solely on the basis of contents of State counsel’s letter is in the realm of surmises and conjectures." The Division Bench concluded that if 05.04.2023 was taken as the reckoning date, the 12-day delay would fall within the condonable period of 30 days under the proviso to Section 34(3).
The judgment stated: "The impugned order of the Section 34 Court dated 04.07.2025 made in Judl. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2023 is set aside; the delay of 12 days in filing the Section 34 petition by the State is condoned. The Section 34 Court is requested to take up the Section 34 petition of the State, consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law and render a verdict as expeditiously as the business of the Court would permit."
"Sub-section (5) notice has been held to be not mandatory in State of Bihar v. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti (2018) 9 SCC 472; as such, the one-year reckoning date will be from the date of filing of the petition." It further directed that the Section 34 Court "would do well to dispose of the Section 34 petition on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as its business would permit," keeping in mind the statutory timelines and the Supreme Court’s direction for expeditious disposal of arbitration-related petitions.
"Captioned appeal is allowed with aforementioned observations. Consequently, captioned miscellaneous cases are also disposed of as closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. M. Rarry, Senior Counsel, instructed by Ms. M. Nikita, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. H.S. Paonam, Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. Purvesh Buttan and Ms. Th. Lekhakumari, Advocates.
Case Title: The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department (including NH & NEC), Imphal v. M/S Keystone Infra Private Limited
Case Number: Arb. A. No. 1 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice M. Sundar, Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma
