Bombay High Court
JITENDRA S SHINDE AND ORSversusRAVINDRA Y OAK AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
A certified, authenticated copy of the arbitral award is sufficient for a Section 34 petition; the original award need not be produced.
Summary
The petitioners sought the original copy of an arbitral award, arguing that Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act requires the original for filing a challenge. The arbitrator had retained the sole original and handed a certified copy to the petitioners, who returned it. The bank (respondent No.2) indicated it would not object to a Section 34 petition filed with the certified copy. Relying on precedents such as Hi Style India Pvt Ltd v. Rakesh Corp and Continental Telepower Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the court held that a certified, authenticated copy satisfies the statutory requirement of a "signed copy" and triggers the limitation period. The court examined the original award, found it identical to the certified copy, and ordered the bank to communicate charges for certified copies of the arbitration records. The petitioners were allowed to rely on the certified copy, and the petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a party is entitled to the original arbitral award for filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
- Whether a certified copy of the award, authenticated by the arbitrator, fulfills the statutory requirement of service under Section 31(5) and triggers the limitation period under Section 34.
- Whether the bank may retain the sole original award and refuse its production to the petitioners.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 31(5), 33(1), 34, 34(3)
Subjects
- Arbitral award
- Certified copy
- Original copy
- Section 34
- Limitation period
- Service of award
- Arbitration law
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
GAEKWAD 2026.08.21
10:38:01
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10631 OF 2026
Jitendra S. Shinde and Ors. ….Petitioners
Versus
Ravindra Y. Oak and Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Bhavesh Parmar a/w. Mr. Rajesh Sahani i/b. Mr. Devmani
Shukla for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kunal Damle a/w. Ms. Iraa Dube Patil and Mr. Sushant Shinkar
i/b. Mr. Arnav Urankar for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Vaishnavi D’souza i/b. Raval Shah and Co. for Respondent
No.2.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ.
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026
P.C. :-
1. The short issue raised is that the Petitioners had a right
to receive the original copy of the Award. Respondent No.1, the
Arbitrator created only one original copy of the Award and handed it
over to Respondent No.2, the Bank. A certified copy of the said
Award was delivered to the Petitioners, who returned the same on
the ground that it was a certified copy and the law mandates that an
original copy be served in order to comply with the requirements of
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (the said Act).
The learned Advocate for the Petitioners further submits that
presently he has received a certified true copy of the original Award.
2. The learned Advocate representing the Bank submits,
on instructions, that if the Petitioners initiate proceedings under
Section 34 of the said Act, Respondent No.2, the Bank will not raise
any objection that the Appeal is preferred along with a certified
copy, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
3. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No.1,
the Arbitrator, relies upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of
this Court in Hi Style India Private Limited v/s. Rakesh
Corporation1 and, more particularly, paragraph nos.31 to 35, which
read as under :
31. To deal with this situation, Mr. Wadhwani
would contend that the Impugned Award was
never really received by Hi Style since the
original award signed in the original by the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal has not been served on
Hi Style till date. He would submit that merely a
copy has been sent by the office of the Mahajan
and this does not constitute delivery of the arbitral
1. 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4504
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
award under Section 31(5) of the Act.
32. Towards this end, the judgment of a Learned
Division bench of the Delhi High Court rendered
in Kristal Vision Private Limited approving the
ruling of a Learned Single Judge of that Court
summarises the law clearly, and I am in respectful
agreement with it. The following extracts are
noteworthy : -
34. In Continental Telepower Industries Ltd.
v. Union of India, 2009 SCC OnLine Del
1859, the learned Single Judge of this Court
has held that there is no requirement in
Section 31(5) of the Act to deliver an ink
signed copy of the award. Section 34 of the
Act does not require the filing of any ink
signed copy of the award along with petition,
though the award would definitely be
required by the Court to appreciate the
contentions with respect thereto. It was
further held that the photocopy of the signed
award along with cover letter bearing
signature in original of the arbitrator was
sufficient authentication of the photocopy of
the award enclosed. It was observed that
Section 31(5) of the Act uses the expression
"signed copy". Copy is generally understood
as something different from the original.
Legislature did not use the expression
"signed award". Thus, the Arbitrator is not
required to deliver to the parties award
signed by the members of the Arbitral
Tribunal, as mentioned in Section 31(1) of
the Act, but merely a "copy" thereof. The
purpose of qualifying the word "copy" with
"signed" is that there must be some
authentication of the "copy". If it were to be
held that the "copy" must be "ink signed" by
the arbitrators, then it will not be a "copy"
Gauri Gaekwad 3 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
but be the award signed by the arbitrators.
That is the only possible meaning of the
words "signed" and "copy" used in
conjunction.
[Emphasis Supplied]
33. A Learned Single Judge of this Court dealing
with a bunch of Writ Petitions raising the same
issue about delivery of the Arbitral Award
examined the declaration of the law by Learned
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing
Federation of India Ltd., with approval in the
following terms :
8.1. In National Agricultural Cooperative
Marketing Federation of Indian Ltd. (supra)
the learned Division Bench of the Calcutta
High Court while considering the language
of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, held as
under :-
25. There can be no doubt that the
arbitral award would necessarily have to
be signed by all the arbitrators or at least
by the majority of the members of the
arbitral tribunal. However, in our view,
it was not the intention of legislature
that all the copies of the award,
dispatched to the respective parties
would have to be separately signed by
the Learned arbitrators. A certified
photocopy of the original award along
with the signatures of the members of
the Arbitral Tribunal would suffice.
26. Had it been the legislative intent that
all copies of the award required to be
furnished to the respective parties to a
multi party arbitration, should actually
Gauri Gaekwad 4 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
be signed by members of the arbitral
tribunal themselves and/or in other
words, each of the copies should contain
the original signatures of the arbitrators,
Parliament would, perhaps, not have
used the expression 'signed copy of the
award' but used the expression 'a copy
of the award, duly signed by the
arbitrators', in Section 31(5) of the 1996
Act.
[Emphasis Supplied]
34. Citing the same with approval, the Learned
Single Judge inter alia ruled as follows :
The delivery of the signed copy of the award,
is therefore information, brought to the
notice and knowledge of each party, as to the
contents of the award, so as to make the
'party', aware that the limitation to raise a
challenge, has started to run, which
knowledge/information is equally available
to the 'party', when it receives the certified
copy of the award signed by the Arbitrator.
The purpose of the provision, of imparting
knowledge to the 'party', as to the contents of
the award, is achieved whether a signed copy
is delivered or the certified copy of the
signed award is obtained by the 'party'. In
either case knowledge/information as to the
contents of the award stands attributed to the
'party', and the time as provided in Section
33(1) and 34(3) of the A & C Act. begins to
run therefrom.
[Emphasis Supplied]
35. I am in respectful agreement with the position
articulated by the Learned Single Judge of our
Court and the Learned Division Bench of the
Gauri Gaekwad 5 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
Delhi High Court and the Calcutta High Court.
Admittedly, the Arbitral Award was received by
way of the communication dated May 15, 2018 on
May 23, 2018. Hi Style had knowledge of the
Arbitral Award having been passed, with the time
limit under Section 34(3) of the Act beginning to
run from that date. Despite having notice of the
award having been passed, Hi Style did not
pursue the recourse available to it under Section
34 of the Act.
4. In view of the above, after perusing the original Award,
which is identical to the certified copy served upon the Petitioners,
we have returned the original Award to the learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2, the Bank.
5. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that a
certified copy of the entire records and proceedings, including the
Roznama in relation to the Arbitration Proceeding No.162 of 2022,
would be required by the Petitioners. An application has already
been made to the Bank for receiving the certified copies on payment
of requisite charges.
6. As such, we direct Respondent No.2, the Bank to
communicate to the Petitioners the charges for the certified copies
Gauri Gaekwad 6 of 7
906.WP-10631-2026.odt
of the records and proceedings, on the e-mail of Petitioner No.1
which is mentioned in the cause title of the Petition, within seven
working days from today. The Petitioners would deposit the said
amount within seven working days thereafter. Once the amount is
deposited, Respondent No.2 shall supply certified copies of the
records and proceedings to Petitioner No.1 within 15 days
thereafter.
7. By consent, we record that the Petitioners would be at
liberty to avail of further remedies by relying upon the certified
copy of the original Award delivered in Arbitration Case
No.ARB/DNSB/RYO/162 of 2022, dated 22nd August, 2025 and the
Bank or any other person / stakeholder would not raise an objection
that the original Award is not produced by the Petitioners keeping in
view that the solitary copy of the original Award is retained by the
Bank.
8. In view of the above, this Petition is disposed off.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Gauri Gaekwad 7 of 7
Checking your session…