In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that the delivery of an arbitral award to a Power of Attorney (PoA) holder—who also represented the party during the arbitral proceedings—constitutes valid delivery under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The judgment was passed by a bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja.
Case Background:
The dispute stemmed from a Collaboration Agreement dated 14.05.2001. A Sole Arbitrator was appointed by the Court on 16.10.2005. Subsequently, the arbitral award was passed on 03.06.2019.
The Appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act on 18.04.2022, challenging the arbitral award. However, since this petition was filed beyond the limitation period stated in Section 34(3), the Appellant also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 287-day delay.
The Trial Court dismissed the Section 34 petition along with the condonation plea on 18.10.2024, ruling them time-barred. The Appellant then filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 37 of the A&C Act before the Delhi High Court.
The Appellant claimed that she was not aware of the arbitration proceedings or the arbitral award until she received notice in execution proceedings.
She further stated that on inspecting arbitral records on 18.07.2024, she came to know for the first time that she was allegedly represented in arbitration by her mother, Smt. Indira Chopra, based on a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 14.12.2008.
“I don’t recall ever executing such a Power of Attorney in favour of my mother,” the Appellant argued.
Read also: Writ Petition Not an “Earlier Application” Under Section 42 of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court
Although she admitted receiving a notice dated 24.09.2019 from her mother’s counsel referencing the arbitral award, she argued that it did not constitute proper notice or delivery under Section 31(5) since the notice only referred to the award but did not enclose a copy of it.
The Respondent’s counsel maintained that the Appellant was aware of the award through continuous correspondence, and despite being called upon to act in accordance with the award, she never asked for a copy.
The counsel referred to a Madras High Court judgment dated 06.01.2020 in M/s Resurgent Power Project Ltd. v. M/s ABB India Ltd to argue that the limitation period under Section 34 had rightfully expired.
He also pointed out that the Appellant’s mother appeared in arbitration as her representative based on the GPA, and that the Appellant’s current claim of forgery was an afterthought.
The Delhi High Court referred to multiple precedents including the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors (2005) 4 SCC 2 and reiterated that:
“The limitation period under Section 34(3) starts from the date when a signed copy of the award is delivered to the party seeking to challenge it.”
The core issue before the Court was whether the Appellant had received the award in accordance with law.
Although the Appellant alleged forgery of the Power of Attorney, the Court emphasized that such disputes on document authenticity could not be resolved in a Section 34 petition.
“There is no record of the Appellant having initiated any separate proceedings to challenge the alleged forged Power of Attorney,” the Court noted.
It further observed that:
- A legal notice dated 24.09.2019 was sent to the Appellant from her mother’s lawyer, along with a GPA for execution, referencing the arbitral award.
- The Appellant’s reply dated 07.10.2019 did not object to her representation by her mother nor deny knowledge of the award.
In fact, the Appellant said the impugned award should be implemented without delay—a statement which, according to the Court, clearly contradicted her claim of unawareness.
The Court made a crucial legal clarification regarding Section 31(5):
“While Section 31(5) requires that a signed copy of the arbitral award be delivered to the party, such delivery to a Power of Attorney holder—who also represented the party in proceedings—amounts to valid compliance.”
Since the Appellant’s mother, acting under a Power of Attorney, received the signed copy on behalf of the Appellant, this fulfilled the legal requirement.
The Delhi High Court held:
“Having accepted the award through her Power of Attorney holder, the Appellant cannot now contest its validity after the expiry of the limitation period.”
Case Title – Kiran Suran v. Satish Kumar
Case No. – FAO (COMM) 27/2025 & CM APPL. 4381/2025
Appearance-
For Petitioner - Mr.Shailendra Dahiya, Adv.
For Respondent - Mr.Sanjay Katyal and Ms.Ritika Bansal, Advs.
Date – 14.04.2025
