Holding

The limitation period for filing objections under Section 34 starts from the date the signed copy of the arbitral award is delivered to the parties, i.e., 19 May 2018.

Summary

The appellant, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., terminated a service level agreement with the respondent, Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., leading to arbitration. The three‑member tribunal orally pronounced a majority award on 27‑04‑2018, but the dissenting arbitrator issued a separate opinion and the signed copy of the award was only delivered to the parties on 19‑05‑2018. The appellant filed a Section 34 petition on 10‑09‑2018, arguing that the limitation period began on the date the draft award was circulated (27‑04‑2018). The High Court and the trial court held that the limitation started on 27‑04‑2018 and dismissed the petition as time‑barred. The Supreme Court examined Sections 31 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and held that the limitation period for a Section 34 petition commences only when a party receives the signed award, i.e., 19‑05‑2018. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the petition restored for merits‑determination.

Issues considered

The date from which the limitation period for filing a Section 34 petition begins – whether from the circulation of the draft award or from receipt of the signed award.
Whether a dissenting arbitrator’s opinion forms part of the arbitral award for the purpose of computing the limitation period.
Whether the award is deemed made on the date of oral pronouncement despite the lack of signatures.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996s. 29, s. 29A, s. 31, s. 31(1), s. 31(5), s. 32, s. 33, s. 34, s. 34(3), s. 35, s. 36
Limitation Act, 1963s. 5

Subjects

ArbitrationSection 34 petitionLimitation periodArbitral award signingDissenting opinionArbitration and Conciliation ActCivil appeal

Judgment

[2021] 1 S.C.R. 1135 1135

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. A
v.
M/S NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 791 of 2021)
MARCH 02, 2021 B
[INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.31 and s.34 – Period
of limitation for filing the petition u/s. 34 – A service level agreement
was executed by the appellant-corporation in favour of the
C
respondent-company providing call centre services – Agreement
provided arbitration clause – The appellant-corporation terminated
the service level agreement, which led to dispute between the parties
– The disputes were referred to arbitration by a three-member tribunal
– The arbitral tribunal orally pronounced the award [2:1] on
27.04.2018, whereby the claims of the respondent-company were D
allowed – The parties were informed that the third arbitrator had
disagreed with the view taken by the majority of arbitrators, and
would be rendering his separate opinion – A copy of the draft award
was provided to the parties to point out any computation, clerical
or typographical errors in the award – On 12.05.2018, a copy of
E
the dissenting opinion was provided by the third arbitrator to the
parties (even though the opinion was dated 27.04.2018) – The
matter was then posted to 19.05.2018, for the parties to point out
any typographical or clerical mistakes in the dissenting opinion
delivered by the third arbitrator – On 19.05.2018, the signed copy
of the arbitral award was provided to both the parties, and the F
proceedings were terminated – Whether the period of limitation for
filing the Petition u/s.34 would commence from the date on which
the draft award dated 27.04.2018 was circulated to the parties, or
the date on which the signed copy of the award was provided i.e.
19.05.2018 – Held: s.31(1) makes it obligatory for each of the
G
members of the tribunal to sign the award, to make it a valid award
– Further, the period of limitation for filing the objections to the
award u/s.34 commences from the date on which the party making
the application has “received” a signed copy of the arbitral award,
as required by s.31(5) of the Act – In the instant case, on 19.05.2018,
H
1135
1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A the signed copy of the award and the dissenting opinion, alongwith
the original record, were handed over to the parties, as also to
each of the arbitrators – Therefore, the period of limitation for filing
objections would have to be reckoned from the date on which the
signed copy of the award was made available to the parties i.e. on
19.05.2018.
B
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Whether the period of limitation for filing the
Petition u/s.34 would commence from the date on which the draft
award dated 27.04.2018 was circulated to the parties, or the date
C on which the signed copy of the award was provided
1. The legal requirement of signing the arbitral award by a
sole arbitrator, or the members of a tribunal is found in Section
31 of the 1996 Act, which provides the form and content of an
arbitral award. [Para 4(vii)][1149-C]
D 2. Section 31 (1) is couched in mandatory terms, and
provides that an arbitral award shall be made in writing and signed
by all the members of the arbitral tribunal. If the arbitral tribunal
comprises of more than one arbitrator, the award is made when
the arbitrators acting together finally express their decision in
E writing, and is authenticated by their signatures. An award takes
legal effect only after it is signed by the arbitrators, which gives
it authentication. There can be no finality of the award, except
after it is signed, since signing of the award gives legal effect and
validity to it. The making and delivery of the award are different
stages of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is
F authenticated by the person who makes it. The statute makes it
obligatory for each of the members of the tribunal to sign the
award, to make it a valid award. The usage of the term “shall”
makes it a mandatory requirement. It is not merely a ministerial
act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with.
G [Para 4(viii)][1149-G-H; 1150-A-C]
3. Sub-section (1) of Section 31 read with sub-section (4)
makes it clear that the Act contemplates a single date on which
the arbitral award is passed i.e. the date on which the signed
copy of the award is delivered to the parties. Section 31 (5) enjoins
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1137
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

upon the arbitrator / tribunal to provide the signed copy of the A
arbitral award to the parties. The receipt of a signed copy of the
award is the date from which the period of limitation for filing
objections u/S. 34 would commence. This would be evident
from the language of sub-section (3) of Section 34(3).
[Para 4(ix)][1150-D-E]
B
4. The date on which the signed award is provided to the
parties is a crucial date in arbitration proceedings under the Indian
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is from this date that:
(a) the period of 30 days’ for filing an application under Section
33 for correction and interpretation of the award, or additional
award may be filed; (b) the arbitral proceedings would terminate C
as provided by Section 32(1) of the Act; (c) the period of limitation
for filing objections to the award under Section 34 commences.
[Para 4(xvii)][1153-G; 1154-A]
5. Section 34 provides recourse for judicial scrutiny of the
award by a Court, upon making an application under sub-sections D
(2) and (3) for setting aside the award. The period of limitation
for filing the objections to the award u/S. 34 commences from the
date on which the party making the application has “received” a
signed copy of the arbitral award, as required by Section 31(5) of
the 1996 Act. Section 34(3) provides a specific time limit of three E
months from the date of “receipt” of the award, and a further
period of thirty days, if the Court is satisfied that the party was
prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within
the said period, but not thereafter. [Para 4(xviii)][1154-B-D]
6. Applying the law to the facts of the present case, this F
Court finds from a perusal of the arbitral proceedings that even
though the award was pronounced on 27.04.2018, the signed copy
of the award was provided to the parties only on 19.05.2018. The
procedural orders of the tribunal reveal that on 27.04.2018, only
a copy of the award was provided to the parties to point out any
computation error, any clerical or typographical error, or any other G
error of similar nature which may have occurred in the award on
the next date. It was also recorded that the third arbitrator had
dissented, and would be delivering his separate opinion. On
12.05.2018, the third arbitrator pronounced his dissenting
opinion. On that date, the tribunal posted the matter to H
1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A 19.05.2018, to enable the parties to point out any typographical
or clerical mistakes in the dissenting opinion, and for handing
over the original record of the proceedings to the parties. On
19.05.2018, the signed copy of the award and the dissenting
opinion, alongwith the original record, were handed over to the
parties, as also to each of the arbitrators. The tribunal ordered
B
the termination of the proceedings. [Para 5][1160-C-F]
7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the period
of limitation for filing objections would have to be reckoned from
the date on which the signed copy of the award was made available
to the parties i.e. on 19.05.2018 in the instant case. [Para 6]
C [1160-G]
Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors
(2005) 4 SCC 239 : [2005] 2 SCR 983; P. Radha Bai v.
P. Ashok Kumar (2019) 13 SCC 445 : [2018] 12 SCR
143; Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co.Ltd.
D v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC 131 : [2019] 7 SCR 522
– relied on.
State of Maharashtra v. Ark Builders (2011) 4 SCC 616
: [2011] 4 SCR 432; Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v.
Pravinchandra Jinabhai Patel (2018) 15 SCC 178 :
E [2018] 3 SCR 718; State of Himachal Pradesh v
Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) 12 SCC 210 :
[2010] 8 SCR 1025; Union of India v. Popular
Construction (2001) 8 SCC 470 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR
619; Simplex Infrastructure v. Union of India (2019)
F 12 SCC 455 – referred to.
Axios Navigation v. Indian Oil Corporation 2012 SCC
Online Bom 4; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Acome
and Ors. AIR 2009 Delhi 102; Axion Navigation v.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2012) 114 (1) Bom LR
G 392; Oriental insurance Co. v. Air India Ltd. (2019)
SCC Online Del 11634 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 7 SCR 522 relied on Paras 3.1, 4.20
[2005] 2 SCR 983 relied on Para 4.10
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1139
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

[2011] 4 SCR 432 referred to Para 4.11 A
[2018] 3 SCR 718 referred to Para 4.11
[2010] 8 SCR 1025 referred to Para 4.12
[2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 619 referred to Para 4.18
(2019) 12 SCC 455 referred to Para 4.18 B
[2018] 12 SCR 143 relied on Para 4.19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 791
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2019 of the High Court C
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 1954 of 2019.
Hemant Gupta, Ms. Payal Gupta, Ms. Sunakshi Gupta, Tushar
Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Advs. for the Appellant.
Joby P. Varghese, Adv. for the Respondent.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal arises from a Petition filed under
E
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Appellant-
Bijli Vitrain Nigam to challenge the arbitral award dated 27.04.2018
passed by a three-member tribunal (2:1) in favour of the respondent
company.
2. The issue which has arisen for our consideration is as to whether
F
the period of limitation for filing the Petition under Section 34 would
commence from the date on which the draft award dated 27.04.2018
was circulated to the parties, or the date on which the signed copy of the
award was provided.
(i) The background facts emanate from a Service Level
Agreement dated 02.05.2011 executed by the appellant- G
corporation in favour of the Respondent-company providing
call centre services.
Clause 13 of the Agreement provided for resolution of
disputes through arbitration by a three-member tribunal,
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. H
1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A Clause 13 reads as :
“13. Arbitration
All matter question, disputes, differences and/or claims arising
out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or in
consequences or relating to the Contract whether or not obligations
B of either or both parties under the Contract be subsisting at the
time of such dispute and whether or not the contract has been
terminated or purported to be terminated or completed, shall be
referred to the arbitration which shall be conducted by three
arbitrators, one each to be nominated by the Service Provider and
C the Nigam (Arbitrator to be approved by the MD DHBVNL or
authority of the Nigam) and the third to be named by the president
of the institution of Engineers, India. If either of the parties fails to
appoint its arbitrator within thirty (30) days after receipt of a notice
from the other party invoking the arbitration clause, the president
of the institution of Engineers, India, shall have the power at the
D request of either of the parties, to appoint the arbitrator. A certified
copy of the order of the institution of engineers (India) making
such an appointment will be furnished to each of the parties.
The decision of the majority of the arbitrators shall be final and
binding upon the parties. The parties to the contract agree that
E the cost of arbitration shall be as per instructions to the Nigam
issued/prevalent on the date of appointment of arbitral tribunal.
The arbitrators may, from time to time, with the consent of the
parties enlarge the time for making the award. In the event of any
of the aforesaid arbitrators dying, neglecting, resigning or being
F usable to act for any reason, it will be lawful for the party
concerned to nominate another arbitrator in place of the outgoing
arbitrator.
The arbitrator shall have full powers to review and/or revise any
decision, opinion, direction, certification or valuation of the Engineer
G in consonance with the Contract, and neither party shall be limited
in the proceedings before such arbitrators to the evidence or
arguments put before the engineer for the purpose of obtaining
the said decision.
…
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1141
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Subject to aforementioned provisions, the provisions of the A
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules there under
any statutory modifications thereof for the time being enforce,
shall be deemed to apply to the Arbitration proceedings under the
clause.”
(ii) On 16.10.2014, the appellant corporation terminated the B
Service Level Agreement, which led to disputes between
the parties. The disputes were referred to arbitration by a
three-member tribunal.
(iii) The arbitral tribunal orally pronounced the award [2:1] on
27.04.2018, whereby the claims of the respondent company C
were allowed. The parties were informed that the third
arbitrator had disagreed with the view taken by the majority
of arbitrators, and would be rendering his separate opinion.
A copy of the draft award was provided to the parties to
point out any computation, clerical or typographical errors
in the award on the next date of hearing. D

The proceedings of the tribunal dated 27.04.2018 read
as under :
“27.04.2018
Present:- E
Sh. Nishant Shrivastava, Advocate for the claimant with
Sh. Ankur Bhatia, M.D. of the Claimant.
Sh. Ashish Goyal, Advocate and Sh. Sanjeev Sharma,
JE for the respondent.
F
Vide separately recorded award dated today, claims of
the claimant have been allowed with cost. Dr. Shiva
Sharma has agreed with same, whereas Sh. D.S. Yadav
has disagreed. He shall file his separate award. Copies
free of costs, of the award have been supplied to both
the Ld. Counsels for the parties. To come up on G
12.05.2017, at 4:30 p.m. for award of Sh. D.S. Yadav,
Arbitrator. On that date, parties are also required to show
any computation error, any clerical or typographical error
or any other error of similar nature occurred in the award
if any. H
1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A Vinod Jain, D&S Judge(retd.) Presiding Arbitrator
Sh. Shiva Sharma, D&S Judge (retd.)
Sh.D.S. Yadav, Director, DHBVN (retd.)”
(emphasis supplied)
The matter was next posted to 12.05.2018.
B (iv) On 12.05.2018, a copy of the dissenting opinion was
provided by the third arbitrator to the parties (even though
the opinion was dated 27.04.2018). The matter was then
posted to 19.05.2018, for the parties to point out any
typographical or clerical mistakes in the dissenting opinion
C delivered by the third arbitrator.
The order dated 12.05.2018 reads as :
“12.05.2018
Present:-
D Sh. Nishant Shrivastava, Advocate for the claimant
Sh. Sanjeev Sharma, JE for the respondent.
Arbitrator Sh. D.S. Yadav has filed his own dissenting
Award.

E Copies free of cost have been supplied to both the
parties to these arbitration proceedings. Both the
parties have not pointed out any computation or clerical
error etc. in the award dated 27.04.2018.
Now to come up on 19.05.2018 at the same venue to
point out any typographical or clerical mistakes if any in
F
the award of today given by Sh. D.S. Yadav, Arbitrator.
Venue the same. Also on that date original record should
be handed over to the Ld. Counsel for the claimant for
safe custody with pen drives of the record to the other
party as well as to the Arbitrators.”
G
(emphasis supplied)
(v) On 19.05.2018, the tribunal recorded that both the parties
had not filed any application to point out any clerical or
typographical mistakes in the award, or dissenting opinion.
On this date, the signed copy of the arbitral award was
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1143
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

provided to both the parties, and the proceedings were A
terminated. The proceedings of 19.05.2018 read as :
“19.05.2018
Present:-
Sh. Nishant Shrivastava, Advocate for the claimant B
Sh. Ashish Goyal, Advocate with Sh. Sanjeev Sharma,
JE for the respondent.
Original record has been handed over to Sh. Nishant
Shrivastava, Advocate for its safe custody with him and
for its production before the appropriate authority in case C
of need. Pen drives of the record have been provided to
both the counsels as well as to the arbitrators. Record is
comprised of two files. First file of pleadings is comprised
of 270 pages and second file of awards, evidence, zimini
orders and misc. papers is comprised of 596 pages. D
Awards (signed copies) have also been provided
to Ld. Counsel for both the parties free of cost.
Both the parties also not filed any applications to point
out any clerical or typographical mistakes in the awards.
Proceedings now come to an end, so are hereby
E
terminated.”
(emphasis supplied)
(vi) The Appellant-corporation filed its Objections under
Section 34 on 10.09.2018 before the Ld. Civil Court, Hisar,
Haryana vide Arbitration Petition No. 316/2018 to challenge F
the award dated 27.04.2018, along with an Application for
condonation of delay.
It was submitted by the appellant corporation that the
objections were filed within the period prescribed by Section
34(3) i.e. within 3 months and 30 days from the date of G
receipt of the signed award on 12.05.2018.
(vii) The Civil Court dismissed the Application for condonation
of delay vide Order dated 14.02.2019. It was held that the
Appellant had received the majority award on 27.04.2018.
Thus, the period of limitation starts running from the same H
1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A date. Accordingly, the period of limitation of three months
starts from 27.04.2018 i.e. the date on which the Appellant
received the arbitral award. The proviso to Section 34(3)
provides that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented from sufficient cause from making the application
within 3 months, it may entertain the application within a
B
further period of 30 days. In the present case, the application
u/S. 34 was filed even after the expiry of the further period
of 30 days. Merely because the dissenting opinion was
erroneously styled as an award by the minority arbitrator, it
cannot be said that the dissenting opinion attains the status
C of an award. Consequently, the objections were dismissed
solely on the ground of delay.
(viii) The appellant corporation filed Appeal No. 1954/2019
(O&M) under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act before the
High Court.
D The High Court vide the impugned Order dated 11.12.2019
affirmed the Order passed by the Civil Court. It was held
that a reading of Section 31 clearly reflects that once an
award is signed and communicated by the majority of
arbitrators, the same would constitute an “award”. The
signed copy of the majority award i.e. signed by two of the
E
three arbitrators was received on 27.04.2018, and u/S. 34(3),
the objections had to be filed within 3 months, which would
expire on 27.07.2018. Even if the benefit of 30 days had
been granted to the Appellants, the objections ought to have
been filed by 26.08.2018, whereas the objections had been
F filed on 10.09.2018. There was no infirmity in the judgment
of the Civil Court, and accordingly, the Appeal was
dismissed.
(ix) Aggrieved by the rejection of the objections under Section
34 on the ground of delay, the appellant corporation has
G filed the present Appeal.
3. Submissions of the parties
(i) The appellant corporation inter alia contended that its
objections had been erroneously dismissed by the Additional
Civil Judge, as well as the High Court on the sole ground of
limitation, and not on merits. It was submitted that reference
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1145
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

to the ‘arbitral award’ in the Arbitration Act includes both A
the majority award as well as the minority opinion.
Section 31(1) of the Act provides that all the members of
the tribunal shall sign the award. Section 31(2) which permits
an award to be rendered so long as it is signed by the majority
of the members, and reasons for omission of the signature B
of the third arbitrator is mentioned, applies only in the case
of a unanimous award. Section 31(2) has no application
when there is dissenting view rendered by one of the
arbitrators.
Section 34 of the Act provides for objections to be filed
against the arbitral award, and not the majority award alone. C
Consequently, the time limit to file objections against an
award under Section 34(3) of the Act, does not relate to
only the majority award, but to the arbitral award, which
includes the opinion of the dissenting member of the tribunal.
It was contended that if the majority award was taken to D
mean the arbitral award, the dissenting opinion of the
minority would have no relevance. Such a view would cause
grave prejudice to the award debtor.
It was further submitted that even though the award of the
majority was pronounced on 27.04.2018, the tribunal posted E
the matter on 12.05.2018 to enable the parties to point out
any correction, or any typographical or clerical error in the
award. On 12.05.2018, the dissenting opinion was
pronounced, and a copy was provided to the parties. The
matter was next posted on 19.05.2018, to consider any
application for correction in the opinion of the minority. Since F
no application for correction of the award, or the minority
opinion, was filed by the parties, the tribunal terminated the
proceedings.
It was further submitted that the dissenting opinion has been
held to be the correct view by the Courts in various cases. G
Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in
Ssangyong Engineering and Construction Co. ltd. v.
NHAI.,1 wherein thedissenting opinion was upheld as being
the correct view, and was affirmed. Reference was made
1
2019 (15) SCC 131. H
1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Axios
Navigation v. Indian Oil Corporation,2 wherein it was
held that the view of the minority was relevant for the
adjudication of objections under Section 34 of the Act.
(ii) On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the
B objections filed by the appellant corporation under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act are barred by limitation, and ought
to be dismissed as such. The contention of the Respondent
is that since the majority award was pronounced on
27.04.2018, the limitation period applicable under Section
34(3) would commence from this date.
C
The Respondent placed reliance on Section 34(3) of the
Act to submit that a party may file objections to the award
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of
the award. On sufficient cause being shown to the
satisfaction of the Court, the three months period could be
D extended by an additional period of thirty days. The
Respondent submitted that the time for filing objections was
available till 26.07.2018, or if sufficient cause was made
out, an additional period of 30 days’ which expired on
26.08.2018.
E The dissenting opinion of the minority member was not an
award for the purposes of computing the limitation period
prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 34.
Section 29(1) of the Act contemplates that the decision of
the majority of members of the tribunal, is the arbitral award.
F Reliance was placed on Section 31(2) of the Act which
provides that the signature of all the members of the tribunal
was not required, so long as the award was signed by a
majority of the members, and reasons for omission of the
signature of the third arbitrator were recorded in the award.
G The opinion of the minority was only a view, and could not
be enforced as an award. It could not be considered to be
the arbitral award for the purpose of computing limitation
under Section 34(3) of the Act.
2
2012 SCC Online Bom 4.
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1147
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Delhi and A
Bombay High Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v.
Acome and Ors. 3, Axion Navigation v. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 4 and Oriental insurance Co. v. Air
India Ltd.,5 wherein it was held that the limitation period
under Section 34(3) of the Act shall commence from the
B
date when the award is passed.
4. Discussion & Analysis
We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties. In order to
appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we will first examine the
scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
C
(i) Section 2 (1)(c) of the 1996 Act defines “arbitral award” to
include an interim award. The phrase “arbitral award” has
been used in several provisions of the 1996 Act.
The statute recognises only one arbitral award being passed
by an arbitral tribunal, which may either be a unanimous
award, or an award passed by a majority in the case of a D
panel of members. An award is a binding decision made by
the arbitrator/s on all the issues referred for adjudication.
The award contains the reasons assigned by the tribunal on
the adjudication of the rights and obligations of the parties
arising from the underlying commercial contract. The award E
must be one which decides all the issues referred for
arbitration. The view of a dissenting arbitrator is not an
award, but his opinion. However, a party aggrieved by the
award, may draw support from the reasoning and findings
assigned in the dissenting opinion.
F
(ii) The phrase ‘arbitral tribunal’ has been defined by Section
2(1)(d) to mean a sole arbitrator, or a panel of arbitrators.
(iii) Chapter VI of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act provides
the procedure for making of an arbitral award, and
termination of arbitral proceedings.
Sections 28 to 31 relate to the procedure for making the G
award. Section 28 provides the rules applicable for the
determination of a dispute by arbitration.
3
AIR 2009 Delhi 102.
4
(2012) 114 (1) Bom LR 392.
5
(2019) SCC Online Del 11634. H
1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A (iv) Section 29 of the 1996 Act deals with decision making by a
panel of arbitrators. Section 29 reads as :
“29. Decision making by a panel of arbitrators.-
(1) Unlessotherwise agreed by the parties, in arbitral
proceedings with more than one arbitrator, any decision
B of the arbitral tribunal shall be made by a majority of all
its members.
(2) Notwithstanding sub-section (1), if authorised by the
parties or all the members of the arbitral tribunal,
questions of procedure may be decided by the presiding
C arbitrator.”
(emphasis supplied)
Sub-section (1) provides that unless the parties agree
otherwise, in arbitral proceedings with more than one
arbitrator, “any decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be made
D by a majority of all its members”.
An “arbitral award” is the decision made by the majority
members of an arbitral tribunal, which is final and binding
on the parties.
Section 35 provides that an arbitral award shall be “final
E
and binding” on the parties and persons claiming under them.
A dissenting opinion does not determine the rights or liabilities
of the parties which are enforceable under Section 36 of
the Act.
(v) The reference to the phrase “arbitral award” in Sections
F
34 and 36 refers to the decision of the majority of the
members of the arbitral tribunal. A party cannot file a petition
u/S. 34 for setting aside, or u/S. 36 for enforcement of a
dissenting opinion. What is capable of being set aside u/S.
34 is the “arbitral award” i.e. the decision reached by the
G majority of members of the tribunal. Similarly, u/S. 36 what
can be enforced is the “arbitral award” passed by the
majority of the members.
(vi) Section 29A was inserted by the 2015 Amendment Act.
Under sub-section (1), the arbitral tribunal [other than in an
H international commercial arbitration] is mandated by statute
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1149
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

to make the arbitral award within a period of 12 months’ A
from the date of completion of pleadings, as provided by
sub-section (4) of Section 23. Section 29A(4) provides that
the “mandate” of the arbitrator/s shall terminate if the award
is not made “within” the period specified in sub-section (1),
or the extended period under sub-section (3). Therefore,
B
by prescription of law, the mandate of the arbitrator/s would
terminate if the time limits are not followed.
(vii) Legal requirement of signing the award
The legal requirement of signing the arbitral award by a
sole arbitrator, or the members of a tribunal is found in C
Section 31 of the 1996 Act, which provides the form and
content of an arbitral award. Section 31 provides that :
“31. Form and contents of arbitral award.- (1) An arbitral
award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by
the members of the arbitral tribunal. D
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), in arbitral
proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures
of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal
shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted
signature is stated. E
….
(4) The arbitral award shall state its date and the place
of arbitration as determined in accordance with section
20 and the award shall be deemed to have been made at
that place. F
(5) After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall
be delivered to each party.
….. ”
(emphasis supplied) G
(viii) Section 31 (1) is couched in mandatory terms, and provides
that an arbitral award shall be made in writing and signed
by all the members of the arbitral tribunal. If the arbitral
tribunal comprises of more than one arbitrator, the award is
made when the arbitrators acting together finally express
H
1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A their decision in writing, and is authenticated by their
signatures.6 An award takes legal effect only after it is signed
by the arbitrators, which gives it authentication. There can
be no finality of the award, except after it is signed, since
signing of the award gives legal effect and validity to it.
The making and delivery of the award are different stages
B
of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is
authenticated by the person who makes it.
The statute makes it obligatory for each of the members of
the tribunal to sign the award, to make it a valid award. The
usage of the term “shall” makes it a mandatory requirement.
C It is not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which
can be dispensed with.
(ix) Sub-section (1) of Section 31 read with sub-section (4)
makes it clear that the Act contemplates a single date on
which the arbitral award is passed i.e. the date on which
D the signed copy of the award is delivered to the parties.
Section 31 (5) enjoins upon the arbitrator / tribunal to provide
the signed copy of the arbitral award to the parties. The
receipt of a signed copy of the award is the date from which
the period of limitation for filing objections u/s. 34 would
E commence. This would be evident from the language of
sub-section (3) of Section 34(3) which reads :
“34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.
…
…
F (3) An application for setting aside may not be made
after three months have elapsed from the date on which
the party making that application had received the
arbitral award or, if a request had been made under
Section 33, from the date on which that request had
G been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal:
Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant
was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
6
Malhotra’s Commentary on the Law of Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 4 th Ed., Vol.1,
p.794.
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1151
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

application within the said period of three months it may A
entertain the application within a further period of thirty
days, but not thereafter.”
(x) In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers &
Contractors7, a three-judge bench of this Court held that
the period of limitation for filing an application u/s. 34 would B
commence only after a valid delivery of the award takes
place u/S. 31(5) of the Act. In para 8, it was held as under:
“8. The delivery of an arbitral award under sub-section
(5) of Section 31 is not a matter of mere formality. It is
a matter of substance. It is only after the stage under C
Section 31 has passed that the stage of termination of
arbitral proceedings within the meaning of Section 32 of
the Act arises. The delivery of arbitral award to the
party, to be effective, has to be ‘received’ by the party.
This delivery by the Arbitral Tribunal and receipt by the
party of the award sets in motion several periods of D
limitation such as an application for correction and
interpretation of an award within 30 days under Section
33(1), an application for making an additional award
under Section 33(4) and an application for setting aside
an award under Section 34(3) and so on. As this delivery E
of the copy of award has the effect of conferring certain
rights on the party as also bringing to an end the right to
exercise those rights on expiry of the prescribed period
of limitation which would be calculated from that date,
the delivery of the copy of award by the Tribunal and
the receipt thereof by each party constitutes an important F
stage in the arbitral proceedings.”
(emphasis supplied)
(xi) The judgment in Tecco Trichy Engineers (supra)was
followed in State of Maharashtra v. Ark Builders, 8 G
wherein this Court held that Section 31(1) obliges the
members of the arbitral tribunal to make the award in writing
and sign it. The legal requirement under sub-section (5) of
7
(2005) 4 SCC 239.
8
(2011) 4 SCC 616 H
1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A Section 31 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. On a harmonious construction of Section
31(5) read with Section 34(3), the period of limitation
prescribed for filing objections would commence only from
the date when the signed copy of the award is delivered to
B
the party making the application for setting aside the award.
If the law prescribes that a copy of the award is to be
communicated, delivered, despatched, forwarded, rendered,
or sent to the parties concerned in a particular way, and
since the law sets a period of limitation for challenging the
C award in question by the aggrieved party, then the period of
limitation can only commence from the date on which the
award was received by the concerned party in the manner
prescribed by law.
The judgment in Tecco Trichy has been recently followed
D in Anilkumar Jinabhai Patel v. Pravinchandra Jinabhai
Patel. 9
(xii) In State of Himachal Pradesh v Himachal Techno
Engineers,10 this Court held that if one of the parties to the
arbitration is Government, or a statutory body, which has
E notified holidays, and if the award was delivered to a beldar
or a watchman on a holiday or non-working day, it cannot
be considered to be “receipt of the award” by the party
concerned for the purposes of Section 31(5) of the Act.
When the award is delivered, or deposited, or left in the
office of a party on a non-working day, the date of physical
F delivery is not the date of “receipt” of the award by that
party. For the purposes of Section 31(5), the date of receipt
will have to be the next working day.
(xiii) Section 32 provides that the arbitral proceedings shall be
terminated after the final award is passed. With the
G termination of the arbitral proceedings, the mandate of the
arbitral tribunal terminates, and the tribunal becomes functus
officio.
9
(2018) 15 SCC 178
10
(2010) 12 SCC 210
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1153
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

(xiv) In an arbitral tribunal comprising of a panel of three A
members, if one of the members gives a dissenting opinion,
it must be delivered contemporaneously on the same date
as the final award, and not on a subsequent date, as the
tribunal becomes functus officio upon the passing of the
final award. The period for rendering the award and
B
dissenting opinion must be within the period prescribed by
Section 29A of the Act.
(xv) In the treatise on ‘International Commercial Arbitration’
authored by Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman, it has been opined
that :
C
“1403.- A dissenting opinion can only be issued when
the majority has already made the decision which
constitutes the award. Until then, any document issued
by the minority arbitrator can only be treated as part of
the deliberations. However, once the majority decision
has been reached, it is preferable for the author of the D
dissenting opinion to communicate a draft to the other
arbitrators so as to enable them to discuss the arguments
put forward in it. The award made by the majority could
then be issued after the dissenting opinion, or at least,
after the draft of the dissenting opinion...” 11 E
(xvi) There is only one date recognised by law i.e. the date on
which a signed copy of the final award is received by the
parties, from which the period of limitation for filing objections
would start ticking. There can be no finality in the award,
except after it is signed, because signing of the award gives F
legal effect and finality to the award.
(xvii) The date on which the signed award is provided to the parties
is a crucial date in arbitration proceedings under the Indian
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is from this date
that: (a) the period of 30 days’ for filing an application under G
Section 33 for correction and interpretation of the award,
or additional award may be filed; (b) the arbitral proceedings
would terminate as provided by Section 32(1) of the Act;
11
Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration, Ed. Emmannuel
Gaillard, John Savage,, p.786 (Kluwer Law International). H
1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A (c) the period of limitation for filing objections to the award
under Section 34 commences.
(xviii) Section 34 provides recourse for judicial scrutiny of the
award by a Court, upon making an application under sub-
sections (2) and (3) for setting aside the award.
B The period of limitation for filing the objections to the award
u/S. 34 commences from the date on which the party
making the application has “received” a signed copy of the
arbitral award, as required by Section 31(5) of the 1996
Act.
C Section 34(3) provides a specific time limit of three months
from the date of “receipt” of the award, and a further period
of thirty days, if the Court is satisfied that the party was
prevented by sufficient cause from making the application
within the said period, but not thereafter.
D In Union of India v. Popular Construction,12 this Court
held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not
apply to applications filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act. It was held that :
“12. As far as the language of Section 34 of the 1996
E Act is concerned, the crucial words are “but not
thereafter” used in the proviso to sub-section (3). In our
opinion, this phrase would amount to an express exclusion
within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation
Act, and would therefore bar the application of Section
F 5 of that Act. Parliament did not need to go further. To
hold that the court could entertain an application to set
aside the award beyond the extended period under the
proviso, would render the phrase “but not thereafter”
wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify
such a result.”
G
In Simplex Infrastructure v. Union of India,13 this Court
held that the phrase “but not thereafter” provided under
Section 34(3) of the Act makes it evident that the statutory
period of limitation for filing an application for setting aside
12
(2001) 8 SCC 470.
13
H (2019) 12 SCC 455
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1155
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

is three months, which is extendable by thirty days, if A
sufficient cause is made out. No further period of time can
be granted for the filing of an application under Section 34.
(xix) If the objections are not filed within the period prescribed
by Section 34, the award holder is entitled to move for
enforcement of the arbitral award as a deemed decree of B
the Court u/S. 36 of the Act.
This Court in P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar,14 held that:
“32.5. Once the time-limit or extended time-limit for
challenging the arbitral award expires, the period for
enforcing the award under Section 36 of the Arbitration C
Act commences. This is evident from the phrase “where
the time for making an application to set aside the
arbitral award under Section 34 has expired”.
[“36. Enforcement.—Where the time for making an
application to set aside the arbitral award under D
Section 34 has expired, or such application having been
made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in
the same manner as if it were a decree of the
Court.”(emphasis supplied)] There is an integral nexus
between the period prescribed under Section 34(3) to E
challenge the award and the commencement of the
enforcement period under Section 36 to execute the
award.
36.2. Second, extending Section 17 of the Limitation
Act to Section 34 would do violence to the scheme of F
the Arbitration Act. As discussed above, Section 36
enables a party to apply for enforcement of award when
the period for challenging an award under Section 34
has expired. However, if Section 17 were to be extended
to Section 34, the determination of “time for making an G
application to set aside the arbitral award” in Section 36
will become uncertain and create confusion in the
enforcement of award. This runs counter to the scheme
and object of the Arbitration Act.”
14
(2019) 13 SCC 445. H
1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A (xx) Relevance of a dissenting opinion
(a) The dissenting opinion of a minority arbitrator can be relied
upon by the party seeking to set aside the award to buttress
its submissions in the proceedings under Section 34.
(b) At the stage of judicial scrutiny by the Court under Section
B 34, the Court is not precluded from considering the findings
and conclusions of the dissenting opinion of the minority
member of the tribunal.
(c) In the commentary of ‘Russel on Arbitration’, the relevance
of a dissenting opinion was explained as follows :
C “6-058. Dissenting opinions. Any member of the
tribunal who does not assent to an award need not sign
it but may set out his own views of the case, either within
the award document or in a separate “dissenting opinion”.
The arbitrator should consider carefully whether there
D is good reason for expressing his dissent, because a
dissenting opinion may encourage a challenge to the
award. This is for the parties’ information only and does
not form part of the award, but it may be admissible as
evidence in relation to the procedural matters in the event
of a challenge or may add weight to the arguments of a
E party wishing to appeal against the award.”15
(emphasis supplied)
(d) Gary B. Born in his commentary on International
Commercial Arbitration opines that :
F “Even absent express authorization in national law or
applicable institutional rules (or otherwise), the right to
provide a dissenting or separate opinion is an appropriate
concomitant of the arbitrator’s adjudicative function and
the tribunal’s related obligation to make a reasoned
award. Although there are legal systems where
G dissenting or separate opinions are either not permitted,
or not customary, these domestic rules have little
application in the context of party-nominated co-
arbitrators, and diverse tribunals. Indeed, the right of an
15
David St. John Sutton, Judith Gill and Matthew Gearing QC, Russel on Arbitration,
H 24th ed. (Sweet & Maxwell), p. 313.
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1157
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

arbitrator to deliver a dissenting opinion is properly A
considered as an element of his / her adjudicative
mandate, particularly in circumstances where a reasoned
award is required. Only clear an explicit prohibition should
preclude the making and publication to the parties of a
dissenting opinion, which serves an important role in the
B
deliberative process, and can provide a valuable check
on arbitrary or indefensible decision making.” 16
It is further commented that :
“There is nothing objectionable at all about an arbitrator
“systematically drawing up a dissenting opinion, and
insisting that it be communicated to the parties”. If an C
arbitrator believes that the tribunal is making a seriously
wrong decision, which cannot fairly be reconciled with
the law and the evidentiary record, then he / she may
express that view. There is nothing wrong – and on the
contrary, much that is right – with such a course as part D
of the adjudicatory process in which the tribunal’s
conclusion is expressed in a reasoned manner. And, if
the arbitrator considers that the award’s conclusions
require a “systematic” discussion, that is also entirely
appropriate; indeed, it is implied in the adjudicative
process, and the requirement of a reasoned award.”17 E
It is further observed that :
“…the very concept of a reasoned award by a multi-
member tribunal permits a statement of different reasons
– if different members of the tribunal in fact hold different
views. This is an essential aspect of the process by F
which the parties have an opportunity to both, present
their case, and hear the reasons for the tribunal’s
decision; not hearing the dissent deprives the parties of
an important aspect of this process.”
(e) In Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd v. G
NHAI,18 this Court upheld the view taken in the dissenting
16
Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, Ed. 2009, Volume
II, p. 2466.
17
Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, Ed. 2009, Volume
II, p. 2469.
18
(2019) 15 SCC 131. H
1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A opinion to be the correct position in law. In this case, the
Court was hearing a special leave petition from an order
passed by a division bench of the Delhi High Court. This
Court noted that:
“12. A Section 34 petition which was filed by the
B appellant was rejected by the learned Single Judge of
the Delhi High Court, by a judgment and order dated 9-
8-2016 [Ssangyong Engg. and Construction Co.
Ltd. v. NHAI, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4536] , in which it
was held that a possible view was taken by the majority
arbitrators which, therefore, could not be interfered with,
C given the parameters of challenge to arbitral awards.
The learned Single Judge also went on to hold that the
New Series published by the Ministry could be applied
in the case of the appellant as the base indices for 2004-
2005 under the New Series were available. Having so
D held, the learned Single Judge stated that even though
the view expressed in the dissenting award is more
appealing, and that he preferred that view, yet he found
that since the majority award is a possible view, the scope
of interference being limited, the Section 34 petition was
dismissed. A Section 37 appeal to the Division Bench of
E the Delhi High Court yielded the same result, by the
impugned judgment dated 3-4-2017 [Ssangyong Engg.
and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 7864 : (2017) 240 DLT 711].”
This Court set aside the award. However, in paragraph 77
F
of the Judgment, the Court held as under :
“77. The judgments of the Single Judge [Ssangyong
Engg. and Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 4536] and of the Division Bench
[Ssangyong Engg. and Construction Co.
G Ltd. v. NHAI, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7864 : (2017) 240
DLT 711] of the Delhi High Court are set aside.
Consequently, the majority award is also set aside. Under
the scheme of Section 34 of the 1996 Act, the disputes
that were decided by the majority award would have to
H be referred afresh to another arbitration. This would
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1159
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

cause considerable delay and be contrary to one of the A
important objectives of the 1996 Act, namely, speedy
resolution of disputes by the arbitral process under the
Act. Therefore, in order to do complete justice between
the parties, invoking our power under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India, and given the fact that there is a
B
minority award which awards the appellant its claim
based upon the formula mentioned in the agreement
between the parties, we uphold the minority award, and
state that it is this award, together with interest, that will
now be executed between the parties. The minority
award, in paras 11 and 12, states as follows: C
“11. I therefore award the claim of the claimant in full.
12. Costs — no amount is awarded to the parties. Each
party shall bear its own cost.”
In Ssangyong, this Court upheld the view taken by the
D
dissenting arbitrator in exercise of its powers under Article
142 of the Constitution, in order to do complete justice
between the parties. The reason for doing so is mentioned
in paragraph 77 i.e. the considerable delay which would be
caused if another arbitration was to be held. This Court
exercised its extraordinary power in Ssangyong keeping in E
mind the facts of the case, and the object of expeditious
resolution of disputes under the Arbitration Act.
(f) In law, where the Court sets aside the award passed by the
majority members of the tribunal, the underlying disputes
would require to be decided afresh in an appropriate F
proceeding.
Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the Court may
either dismiss the objections filed, and uphold the award, or
set aside the award if the grounds contained in sub-sections
(2) and (2A) are made out. There is no power to modify an
G
arbitral award.
In McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co.
Ltd., this Court held as under :
“52. The 1996 Act makes provision for the supervisory
role of courts, for the review of the arbitral award only H
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 1 S.C.R.

A to ensure fairness. Intervention of the court is envisaged
in few circumstances only, like, in case of fraud or bias
by the arbitrators, violation of natural justice, etc. The
court cannot correct errors of the arbitrators. It can only
quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the
arbitration again if it is desired. So, the scheme of the
B
provision aims at keeping the supervisory role of the
court at minimum level and this can be justified as parties
to the agreement make a conscious decision to exclude
the court’s jurisdiction by opting for arbitration as they
prefer the expediency and finality offered by it.”
C 5. Applying the law to the facts of the present case, we find from
a perusal of the arbitral proceedings that even though the award was
pronounced on 27.04.2018, the signed copy of the award was provided
to the parties only on 19.05.2018. The procedural orders of the tribunal
reveal that on 27.04.2018, only a copy of the award was provided to the
D parties to point out any computation error, any clerical or typographical
error, or any other error of similar nature which may have occurred in
the award on the next date. It was also recorded that the third arbitrator
had dissented, and would be delivering his separate opinion. The
proceedings were then posted for 12.05.2018.
E On 12.05.2018, the third arbitrator pronounced his dissenting
opinion. On that date, the tribunal posted the matter to 19.05.2018, to
enable the parties to point out any typographical or clerical mistakes in
the dissenting opinion, and for handing over the original record of the
proceedings to the parties.

F On 19.05.2018, the signed copy of the award and the dissenting
opinion, alongwith the original record, were handed over to the parties,
as also to each of the arbitrators. The tribunal ordered the termination of
the proceedings.
6. We are of the considered opinion that the period of limitation
G for filing objections would have to be reckoned from the date on which
the signed copy of the award was made available to the parties i.e. on
19.05.2018 in the instant case.
7. It is the admitted position that the objections were filed within
the period of limitation prescribed by Section 34(3) of the Act, if reckoned
from 19.05.2018. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the objections have
H
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. v. M/S 1161
NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. [INDU MALHOTRA, J.]

been filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) A
from the date of receipt of the signed award.
8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appeal deserves
to succeed. The judgment of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge,
Hissar, Haryana dated 14.02.2019, and the impugned order passed by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 11.12.2019 are accordingly B
set aside.
9. The Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 being Arb. Pet. No. 316 of 2018 is restored to the
file of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, Haryana to be
decided on merits in accordance with law. C
All pending applications are disposed of. Ordered accordingly.

Ankit Gyan Appeal allowed.

D

E

F

G

H