# Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran v. Neeraj Sharma & Ors. 2496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 2495
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-24
- **Case number:** Conciliation Act No. 8 of 2020
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhartia-rashtriya-rajmarg-pradhikaran-v-neeraj-sharma-ors-2496-indian-law-52073
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Arbitration Law - Non-receipt of signed
copy of arbitral award - Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31 -
National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A
& 3D -- The delivery of an arbitral award is
substantive,
as
it
activates
the
commencement
of
several
critical
timelines.
This
stage
marks
the
termination of the arbitral proceedings
and sets the clock ticking for any remedial
actions available under the Arbitration
Act. (Para 8, 10)

Several procedural timelines include the periods
within which parties may seek to correct,
interpret, or request an additional award u/s 33
of the Arbitration Act, or challenge the award u/s
34 of the Arbitration Act. The delivery of the
signed copy of the arbitral award is not a mere
formality; it is a substantive requirement that
marks the conclusion of the arbitration
proceedings
and
the
commencement
of
potential post-award actions.

A literal interpretation, which ignores the
practical reality that the party was aware
of the arbitral award and acted upon it,
would be contrary to the spirit of the
Arbitration Act. A narrow view of Section
31(5) of the Arbitration Act would defeat
the Arbitration Act's purpose (expeditious
dispute resolution) if it allowed a party to
delay proceedings unjustly by claiming
non- receipt of a signed copy despite
having
knowledge
of
the
award's
contents. (Para 11, 14, 15)

B. If a party begins to comply with the
award's directives or uses the award's
findings in subsequent actions, it indicates
a de facto acceptance of the award. Such
actions provide clear evidence that the
party has understood and accepted the
award's contents, thus making any later
claims
of
non-receipt
appear
disingenuous. (Para 16)

In the instant case, the appellant has assailed
the order of the Learned District Judge based
asserting that they never received a signed copy
of the arbitral award. As per the order of the
Learned District Judge, the appellant was fully
aware of the contents of the arbitral award
dated July 28, 2016 and had acted on it, thereby
demonstrating a practical acknowledgement of
the arbitral award. In view of the award dated
July 28, 2016, the Appellant through its letter
dated May 22, 2017 asked the Special Land
Acquisition officer to calculate the compensation
amount and publish a supplementary award. In
compliance of the same, the Competent
Authority that is the Special Land Acquisition
Officer calculated the amount of compensation
to be paid and sent it to the Appellant on May
31, 2017. It is evident that, the Appellant, even
despite the non-receipt of a signed copy of the
arbitral award dated July 28, 2016 accepted the
same and acted upon it. Therefore, the
appellant
cannot
now
evade
the
consequences by exploiting a procedural
technicality regarding the non-receipt of a
signed copy. It is crucial to interpret S.
31(5) of the Arbitration Act in a matter
that aligns with the Arbitration Act's
overarching goals of promoting fairness
and expeditious dispute resolution. (Para
12, 13)

C. Doctrine of estoppel is vital in
maintaining
procedural
fairness
and
integrity within the arbitration process.
Estoppel prevents a party from taking
inconsistent positions that would harm
the opposing party or undermine the legal
process's credibility. In arbitration, this
doctrine ensures that a party cannot claim
ignorance or non-receipt of an award after
having acted upon it. Estoppel operates to
uphold fairness by ensuring that parties
cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing or
negligence. If a party, aware of the award,
delays raising objections or seeks to take
advantage of procedural nuances to avoid
compliance,
estoppel
can
prevent
such
tactics.
This
doctrine
aligns
with
the
fundamental principles of justice and equity,
ensuring that parties engage with the
arbitration
process
honestly
and
transparently. (Para 17)
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2497
The Learned District Judge, Mathura, was
justified in dismissin

## Text

5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2495
quoted in the preceding paragraph no. 18
(c) of this judgment.

24. In the judgment of Shri Jagdamba
Prasad (Dead) supra, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has distinguished the earlier settled
position of law by giving jurisdiction to the
revisional authority to arrive at contrary
conclusion on the same evidence but has
held that revisional authority cannot exceed
its jurisdiction to come to a contrary
conclusion by admitting new facts either in
the form of document or otherwise to come
to conclusion and it is not the case of the
petitioners that the revisional Court in the
revision had admitted any new fact either in
the form of document or otherwise so the
said judgment is not of any help to the
petitioner.

25. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioners that the compromise was
not considered by the revisional Court, the
said submission was replied by the learned
counsel for the respondents that there was
no agreement /compromise between the
petitioners and the respondents. The
compromise which was relied by the
petitioners was in between Baburam and
Ram Narain- the real brothers and the
decedents of the family of Horilal at the
time of suit between the Baburam and Ram
Narain in the year 1883 A.D. when
Baburam and Ram Narain sought partition
of the certain groves in the Court of learned
Munsif and it was the partition between two
real brothers i.e. decedents of the Horilal
i.e. the family of the petitioners and not
between the family of Horilal and Sheo
Charan and this finding in the order of
Consolidation Officer is not disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.

26. The reading of all the judgments
relied by learned Standing Counsel in the
cases of Preetam Singh (dead) (supra),
Sheo Nand (supra) and the judgment in
the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad
(Dead) (supra) (which has been relied
by both the counsels), clarified the
position that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation can decide the matter
after appreciating the evidence to do
complete justice to the parties.

27. From the aforesaid, the
position which emerges out is that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
having jurisdiction to arrive at a
different conclusion on the same
evidence but the revisional authority
cannot exceed its jurisdiction by
admitting new facts either in the form
of document or otherwise so the
paragraph nos. 13 & 14 of the judgment
in the case of Shri Jagdamba Prasad
(Dead) (supra) is not of any help to the
petitioner in the light of paragraph 15
of the same judgment, as the revisional
court in the said case had admitted new
and fresh evidence.

28. In view of the facts, circumstances
and discussion made hereinabove, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2495
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Appeal Under Section 37 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act No. 8 of 2020

Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran
 ...Appellant
Versus
Neeraj Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents
2496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Pranjal Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Shalini Goel

A. Arbitration Law - Non-receipt of signed
copy of arbitral award - Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 31 -
National Highways Act, 1956 - Sections 3A
& 3D -- The delivery of an arbitral award is
substantive,
as
it
activates
the
commencement
of
several
critical
timelines.
This
stage
marks
the
termination of the arbitral proceedings
and sets the clock ticking for any remedial
actions available under the Arbitration
Act. (Para 8, 10)

Several procedural timelines include the periods
within which parties may seek to correct,
interpret, or request an additional award u/s 33
of the Arbitration Act, or challenge the award u/s
34 of the Arbitration Act. The delivery of the
signed copy of the arbitral award is not a mere
formality; it is a substantive requirement that
marks the conclusion of the arbitration
proceedings
and
the
commencement
of
potential post-award actions.

A literal interpretation, which ignores the
practical reality that the party was aware
of the arbitral award and acted upon it,
would be contrary to the spirit of the
Arbitration Act. A narrow view of Section
31(5) of the Arbitration Act would defeat
the Arbitration Act's purpose (expeditious
dispute resolution) if it allowed a party to
delay proceedings unjustly by claiming
non- receipt of a signed copy despite
having
knowledge
of
the
award's
contents. (Para 11, 14, 15)

B. If a party begins to comply with the
award's directives or uses the award's
findings in subsequent actions, it indicates
a de facto acceptance of the award. Such
actions provide clear evidence that the
party has understood and accepted the
award's contents, thus making any later
claims
of
non-receipt
appear
disingenuous. (Para 16)

In the instant case, the appellant has assailed
the order of the Learned District Judge based
asserting that they never received a signed copy
of the arbitral award. As per the order of the
Learned District Judge, the appellant was fully
aware of the contents of the arbitral award
dated July 28, 2016 and had acted on it, thereby
demonstrating a practical acknowledgement of
the arbitral award. In view of the award dated
July 28, 2016, the Appellant through its letter
dated May 22, 2017 asked the Special Land
Acquisition officer to calculate the compensation
amount and publish a supplementary award. In
compliance of the same, the Competent
Authority that is the Special Land Acquisition
Officer calculated the amount of compensation
to be paid and sent it to the Appellant on May
31, 2017. It is evident that, the Appellant, even
despite the non-receipt of a signed copy of the
arbitral award dated July 28, 2016 accepted the
same and acted upon it. Therefore, the
appellant
cannot
now
evade
the
consequences by exploiting a procedural
technicality regarding the non-receipt of a
signed copy. It is crucial to interpret S.
31(5) of the Arbitration Act in a matter
that aligns with the Arbitration Act's
overarching goals of promoting fairness
and expeditious dispute resolution. (Para
12, 13)

C. Doctrine of estoppel is vital in
maintaining
procedural
fairness
and
integrity within the arbitration process.
Estoppel prevents a party from taking
inconsistent positions that would harm
the opposing party or undermine the legal
process's credibility. In arbitration, this
doctrine ensures that a party cannot claim
ignorance or non-receipt of an award after
having acted upon it. Estoppel operates to
uphold fairness by ensuring that parties
cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing or
negligence. If a party, aware of the award,
delays raising objections or seeks to take
advantage of procedural nuances to avoid
compliance,
estoppel
can
prevent
such
tactics.
This
doctrine
aligns
with
the
fundamental principles of justice and equity,
ensuring that parties engage with the
arbitration
process
honestly
and
transparently. (Para 17)
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2497
The Learned District Judge, Mathura, was
justified in dismissing the appellant's application
u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act as time- barred. The
appellant's awareness of the award and its
subsequent actions negate the claim of nonreceipt of a signed copy. The principle of
estoppel further prevents the appellant from
contradicting their previous acknowledgment of
the award. A balanced interpretation of S. 31(5)
of the Arbitration Act supports the Learned
District Judge's decision, ensuring procedural
fairness and upholding the Arbitration Act's
objectives of expeditious dispute resolution. The
appellant's claim of patent illegality in the
Learned
District
Judge's
judgment
lacks
substance. The decision to dismiss the S. 34
application as time-barred was grounded in the
appellant's evident awareness of the award and
their subsequent actions. (Para 19)

The arbitral award dated July 28, 2016 having
attained finality, cannot be questioned at this
stage.

Application dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. U.O.I., Vs Bhola Prasad Agrawal, 2022 SCC
OnLine Chh 1644 (Para 4)

2. U.O.I. Vs Tecco Trichy Engineers, (2005) 4
SCC 239 (Para 7)

3. Rahul Vs Akola Janta Commercial Cooperative
Bank Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 814 (Para 9)

Present application assails the judgment
and order dated 16.11.2019, passed by
the District Judge, Mathura rejecting the
application filed by the appellant herein
u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. The instant application has been
filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Arbitration Act') against the
judgment and order dated November 16,
2019 passed by the District Judge, Mathura
rejecting the application filed by Bharatiya
Rashtriya
Rajmarg
Pradhikaran
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant')
under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

FACTS

2. I have laid down the factual
matrix of the instant lis below:

(a) A notification was issued under
Section 3A of the National Highways Act,
1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NHAI
Act') on December 4, 2009 followed by a
declaration dated June 25, 2010 under
Section 3D of the NHAI Act in respect of
the land in question. Thereafter, the
Competent Authority declared the award
determining the amount of compensation in
respect of the land in question under
Section 3G of the NHAI Act.

(b) Against the award of the
Competent Authority, the Respondents
filed a petition under Section 3G(5) of the
NHAI Act before the Arbitrator (Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Agra
Division, Agra). The Arbitrator published
an award on July 28, 2016 and remanded
the matter to the Competent Authority.
(c)
The
appellant
filed
an
application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act against the award dated
July 28, 2016 which was rejected vide
judgment and order dated November 16,
2019.
(d) Against the judgment and order
dated November 16, 2019, the appellant has
filed the instant application under Section
37 of the Arbitration Act before this Court.
CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
APPELLANT

3. Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant has
2498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
made the following submissions before this
Court:

(i) As per the provisions of Section
3G(5) of the NHAI Act, the Arbitrator
ought to have determined the amount itself.
As such, the Arbitrator was not justified in
remitting the matter back to the Competent
Authority.
(ii) Learned District Judge acted
with patent illegality in passing the
impugned judgment and order dated
November 16, 2019.
(iii) The appellant never received a
signed copy of the arbitral award dated July
28, 2016 which is a mandatory requirement
under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
As such, the Learned District Judge was not
justified in dismissing the application filed
by the appellant as time barred.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
RESPONDENT

4. Learned counsel appearing for
the Respondents has made the following
submission before this Court:

The appellant had knowledge of
the arbitral award dated July 28, 2016
and was fully aware of the same. As
such, it is not open for it to now argue
that since the appellant did not receive a
signed copy of the award dated July 28,
2016, the period of limitation for
challenging an arbitral award under
Section 34 of the Act never started.
Learned District Judge did not err in
dismissing the application filed by the
appellant under Section 34 of the Act as
time barred. Reliance in this regard is
placed upon the judgment of the High
Court of Chhattisgarh in Union of India
-v- Bhola Prasad Agrawal reported in
2022 SCC OnLine Chh 1644.
ANALYSIS

5. I have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the
materials on record.

6. The primary issue raised in the
instant case is that whether or not the
Learned District Judge was justified in
dismissing the application filed by the
appellant
under
Section
34
of
the
Arbitration Act since the appellant was
never served with a signed copy of the
arbitral award, which is a mandatory
requirement under Section 31(5) of the
Arbitration Act. Relevant parts of Section
31(5) of the Arbitration Act have been
extracted herein below for ease of
reference:

"31. Form and contents of arbitral
award. -
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) ...
(4) ...
(5) After the arbitral award is
made, a signed copy shall be delivered to
each party."

7. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration
Act while seemingly procedural in nature,
embodies broader objectives. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India -v- Tecco
Trichy Engineers reported in (2005) 4
SCC 239 propounded the importance of the
requirement to deliver a signed copy of the
arbitral
award
on
parties.
Relevant
paragraph of the said judgment reads 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
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2499
stage under 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
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 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 stage in the
arbitral proceedings."

8. Delivery of an arbitral award
under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act
plays a pivotal role by initiating various
stages of the arbitration process, setting
limitation periods, and conferring rights
upon the parties. In the realm of sports,
where victory and defeat hang in balance,
arbitration
serves
as
the
referee
adjudicating disputes on the field of play.
Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act acts as
the final whistle, signalling the end of the
match and the declaration of the winner.
For the prevailing party, the delivery of the
award marks the culmination of their efforts
and provides them with a means of
enforcing their rights against the losing
party. Conversely, for the losing party, the
delivery of the award represents the
beginning of the period within which they
may challenge the award on specified
grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act.

9. The Bombay High Court in
Rahul -v- Akola Janta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine Bom 814 espoused on the
significance of delivering the signed copy
of an award under Section 31(5) of the
Arbitration Act to the party, relevant
paragraphs thereof read as under:

"24. The entire object and purport
of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, when it
states that a signed copy of the award shall
be delivered to each party, appears to be,
that the party to the award should be made
known the nature, effect and import of the
award, so that each party, may then take a
decision whether to challenge the award
further
by
instituting
appropriate
proceedings under Section 34 of the A & C
Act, before the Court, or in case there are
any
inaccuracies,
corrections,
interpretations or need for an additional
award therein, to get it corrected by filing
an application under Section 33 of the A &
C Act, before the Arbitrator. This also so,
for the reason that both Section 33(1) and
34(3) of the A & C Act, provide for
limitations of time in this regard to
approach either the Arbitral Tribunal or the
Court for the said purpose and therefore the
delivery of the award as contemplated in
Section 31(5) has the effect of setting in
motion these time periods, within which the
remedies available are to be availed of by
the party. It is in this context it has to be
understood that the signed copy of the
award has to be delivered to the 'party', as
defined in Section 2(h) of the A & C Act, so
that a decision can be taken by the 'party'
regarding the future course of action to be
adopted, within the time frame as stipulated
2500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the provisions of the Statute. 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. The situation is
quite different when the award is not
delivered to the 'party', or obtained by the
'party', but is delivered or obtained to/by
the counsel or agent of the 'party' as the
knowledge of the 'party', as defined in
Section 2(1)(h) of the A & C Act, is what is
contemplated by Section 31(5), as in that
circumstances a plea can successfully be
raised by the 'party', of non-compliance
with the requirement of Section 31(1) which
would entitle it to claim that the time for
challenging the award under Section 34(3)
or
for
correction/interpretation/modification
of
the award or passing of an additional
award did not begin to run.
25. All the judgments cited by Mr.
Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contemplate the requirement of Section
31(5) vis-a-vis the time as prescribed in
Section 34(3) for challenging of the award.
In fact, the factual position in Anilkumar
Jinabhai Patel (supra) is quite similar to
the factual position as extant in the present
matter.
26. Section 32(1) of the A & C Act
pressed into service by Mr. Bhattad,
learned counsel for the petitioner, merely
contemplates
that
the
arbitration
proceedings stand terminated by the final
arbitral award, or by an order of the
Arbitral Tribunal under sub-section (2)
thereof. It does not contemplate that the
arbitral proceedings stand terminated, only
upon delivery of the arbitral award, as
contemplated
by
Section
31(5)
and
therefore nothing turn around the language
of Section 32(1) insofar as the present issue
is concerned.
27. Section 36(1) of the A & C Act,
provides that when the time for making an
application to set aside the arbitral award
under Section 34 has expired, then subject
to Section 36(2) the award shall be
enforced as a decree under the Code of
Civil Procedure. The contention of Mr.
Bhattad, learned counsel for the petitioner,
is that since the signed copy of the award
was not delivered to the petitioner, in terms
of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, the time
for making the application for setting aside
the arbitral award had not expired and the
execution proceedings were therefore
infirm, is in my considered opinion taking a
too literal and narrow view of the language
of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, which
would defeat the very purpose and object of
the Act itself, as once a 'party', is held to
have received/obtained the signed copy of
the award, maybe a certified copy, as
indicated above the information regarding
the contents of the award stands attributed
to the party, and therefore the time, would
begin to run for raising a challenge to the
award. Once that time has expired, it
cannot be permitted to be said that though
a certified signed copy was obtained by the
'party', from the Arbitrator, still the time
under Section 31(1) or 34(3) of the A & C
Act, did not run and expire, as a signed
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2501
copy of the award, in terms of Section 31(5)
was not delivered to the 'party'. It is a
settled position of law, that where the literal
meaning of a provision, entails in doing
violence to the meaning, intent and purpose
of the Act, it would call for a purposeful and
constructive meaning to be given to the
language of the provision."

10. The importance of Section
31(5) cannot be overstated as it initiates
several procedural timelines. These include
the periods within which parties may seek
to correct, interpret, or request an additional
award under Section 33 of the Arbitration
Act, or challenge the award under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act. The delivery of
the signed copy of the arbitral award is not
a mere formality; it is a substantive
requirement that marks the conclusion of
the
arbitration
proceedings
and
the
commencement of potential post-award
actions. In Union of India v. Tecco Trichy
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized that the delivery of an arbitral
award is substantive, as it activates the
commencement
of
several
critical
timelines. This stage marks the termination
of the arbitral proceedings and sets the
clock ticking for any remedial actions
available under the Arbitration Act.

11. However, interpreting Section
31(5) too literally in all cases may lead to
unjust
outcomes,
undermining
the
fundamental objectives of arbitration. The
literal adherence to this provision might be
used strategically by parties to delay the
enforcement of the award, thus defeating
the
principle
of
expeditious
dispute
resolution that arbitration seeks to promote.

12. In the instant case, the
appellant has assailed the order of the
Learned District Judge based on the
assertion that they never received a signed
copy of the arbitral award. However, as
highlighted by the Learned District Court,
it is essential to consider several critical
facts. Relevant portions from the impugned
order dated November 16, 2019 passed by
the Learned District Judge Court under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act are
delineated below:

"इस पत् से यह स्पि है दक, र्ध्यस्थ के दनणमय दिनरांदकत
28.07.2016 के पररप्रेक्ष्य र्ें पररयोजनर दनिेशक, ररष्रीय
ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण, सी०एर्०यू०, र्थुरर द्वररर अपने पत्रांक
44271 दिनरांदकत 22.05.2017 द्वररर दवशेष िूदर् अध्यरदप्त
अदिकररी को अनुपूरक अदिदनणमय घोदषत कर उपिब्ि कररने हेतु
पत् िेजर गयर है एवां उसके अनुपरिन र्ें सक्षर् प्ररदिकररी/दवशेष
िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी द्वररर िनररदश कर गणनर प्रपत् तथर िनररदश
की गणनर दिनरांक 31.05.2017 को पररयोजनर दनिेशक, ररष्रीय
ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण, सी०एर्०यू०, र्थुरर द्वररर प्रेदषत की गयी है,
दजससे यह स्पि है दक , र्ौजूिर आपदत्तकतरम यरदन पररयोजनर
दनिेशक, ररष्रीय ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण, सी०एर्०यू०, र्थुरर द्वररर
र्ध्यस्थ के दनणमय दिनरांदकत 28.07.2016 को स्वीकरर दकयर
गयर है एवां उसके अनुपरिन र्ें प्रदतकर की गणनर करने हेतु सक्षर्
अदिकररी/दवशेष िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी, सांयुक्त सांगठन, र्थुरर को
पत् प्रेदषत दकयर गयर है एवां इस पत् के तथर र्ध्यस्थ र्होिय के
पांचरट दनणमय दिनरांदकत 28.07.2016 के अनुपरिन र्ें सक्षर्
अदिकररी/दवशेष िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी, सांयुक्त सांगठन ने
तहसीििरर छरतर से स्थिीय जराँच कर एवां इस जराँच की आख्यर के
अनुसरर स्थि कर दनरीक्षण कर जराँच आख्यर पररयोजनर दनिेशक,
ररष्रीय ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण, फरीिरबरि को प्रेदषत की। स्थिीय जराँच
आख्यर एवां सवेयर की जराँच आख्यर के अनुसरर र्ध्यस्थ र्होिय के
दनणमय दिनरांदकत 28.07.2016 के अनुपरिन र्ें सक्षर्
अदिकररी/दवशेष िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी द्वररर अनुपूरक अदिदनणमय
घोदषत कर र्ुवदिग 29,04,000/- कर प्रदतकर दवपक्षीगण सांख्यर
1 िगरयत 4 हेतु दनिरमररत दकयर गयर है एवां उक्त प्रदतकर दनिरमरण
र्ध्यस्थ र्होिय के अनुर्ोिन हेतु िी प्रेदषत दकयर गयर है, दजसके
सम्बन्ि र्ें र्ध्यस्थ ने अनुर्ोिन कर कोई प्ररविरन न होने कर कथन
करते हुए सक्षर् अदिकररी/दवशेष िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी, सांयुक्त
सांगठन, र्थुरर को पत् वरपस प्रेदषत दकयर गयर है, दजससे स्पि है
दक, र्ध्यस्थ पांचरट दनणमय दिनरांदकत 28.07.2016 कर
दियरन्वयन हो चुकर है। इस प्रकरर प्रश्नगत र्ध्यस्थ दनणमय दिनरांदकत
2502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
28.07.2016 की पहिे से ही जरनकररी होने तथर इसके
अनुपरिन हेतु दिनरांक 22.05.2017 को सक्षर् अदिकररी/दवशेष
िूदर् अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी, सांयुक्त सांगठन, र्थुरर को र्ौजूिर
आपदत्तकतरम द्वररर पत् िेजने तथर सक्षर् अदिकररी/दवशेष िूदर्
अध्यरदप्त अदिकररी, सांयुक्त सांगठन, र्थुरर के पत्रविी पर र्ौजूि पत्
दिनरांदकत 31.05.2017 एवां गणनर प्रपत् के अविोकन से स्पि
है दक, र्ध्यस्थ के पांचरट दनणमय दिनरांक 28.07.2016 कर
दियरन्वयन हो चुकर है, अतः र्ध्यस्थ के पांचरट दनणमय दिनरांदकत
28.07.2016 कर दिनरांक 31.05.2017 से पूवम अनुपरिन हो
जरने के कररण दिनरांक 01.11.2017 को िररतीय ररष्रीय ररजर्रगम
प्ररदिकरण द्वररर र्ध्यस्थ दनणमय दिनरांदकत 28.07.2016 के दवरुद्ध
प्रस्तुत र्ौजूिर आपदत्त अांतगमत िररर 34 र्ध्यस्थ सुिह अदिदनयर्
1996 करनूनन अपोषणीय हो जरती है, अतः र्ौजूिर आपदत्त
अांतगमत िररर 34 र्ध्यस्थ सुिह अदिदनयर् 1996 द्वररर, िररतीय
ररष्रीय ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण द्वररर पररयोजनर दनिेशक, सी०एर्०यू०
र्थुरर, फरीिरबरि, हररयरणर करनूनन पोषणीय न होने के कररण दनरस्त
होने योवय है।
आदेि
आपदत्तकतरम िररतीय ररष्रीय ररजर्रगम प्ररदिकरण की
आपदत्त करनूनन पोषणीय न होने के कररण दनरस्त की जरती है।
पत्रविी दनयर्रनुसरर अदििेखरगरर प्रेदषत हो।"

13. What emerges from the order
of the Learned District Judge is that the
appellant was fully aware of the contents of
the arbitral award dated July 28, 2016 and
had acted on it, thereby demonstrating a
practical acknowledgement of the arbitral
award. In view of the award dated July 28,
2016, the Appellant through its letter dated
May 22, 2017 asked the Special Land
Acquisition
officer
to
calculate
the
compensation amount and publish a
supplementary award. In compliance of the
same, the Competent Authority that is the
Special
Land
Acquisition
Officer
calculated the amount of compensation to
be paid and sent it to the Appellant on May
31, 2017. What is evident is that, the
Appellant, even despite the non-receipt of a
signed copy of the arbitral award dated July
28, 2016 accepted the same and acted upon
it. Therefore, the appellant cannot now
evade the consequences by exploiting a
procedural technicality regarding the nonreceipt of a signed copy. It is crucial to
interpret Section 31(5) of the Arbitration
Act in a matter that aligns with the
Arbitration Act's overarching goals of
promoting fairness and expeditious dispute
resolution.

14. A literal interpretation, which
ignores the practical reality that the party
was aware of the arbitral award and acted
upon it, would be contrary to the spirit of
the Arbitration Act. This was aptly
summarized by the Bombay High Court in
Akola Janta (supra) when it remarked that
a narrow view of Section 31(5) of the
Arbitration
Act
would
defeat
the
Arbitration Act's purpose if it allowed a
party to delay proceedings unjustly by
claiming non-receipt of a signed copy
despite having knowledge of the award's
contents.

15. In Bhola Prasad (supra), the
High Court of Chhattisgarh while dealing
with a case wherein the signed copy of the
award was not delivered to the appellant
therein in accordance with Section 31(5) of
the Arbitration Act, held that the Court
under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act
was justified in dismissing the application
as time barred since the appellant therein
despite non delivery of the signed copy of
the arbitral award was aware of its contents.
Relevant paragraph is extracted herein:

"21. True, in the instant case, the
Appellant had not received or was not
delivered signed copy of the award as
contained
in
Section
31(5)
of
the
Arbitration Act, but, when Respondent 1
moved the application before Respondent 2
5 All. Bhartia Rashtriya Rajmarg Pradhikaran Vs. Neeraj Sharma & Ors.
2503
for enhancement of the compensation on
the basis of the arbitral award dated
7.3.2018 the Appellant became aware of
passing of the arbitral award and on
20.1.2019 on which he got legal opinion
from the Advocate he became aware that he
had to file an appeal/objection against the
arbitral award. Meaning thereby, on
20.1.2019 itself, the Appellant was very
well aware that he had to prefer an
appeal/objection
against
the
arbitral
award. True, as per the provisions of
Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act, it is
necessary to deliver a signed copy of the
arbitral award to each of the parties after
passing of the arbitral award, but, in the
instant case, it has not been done so by the
Arbitrator. This Court is of the view that
provision of delivery of a signed copy of the
arbitral award to each of the parties to the
proceeding is meant for the purpose that the
parties should aware of the contents of the
award passed and if any of them has
grievance, he can proceed further in
accordance with law. As observed earlier,
the Appellant had already become aware of
the award when Respondent 1 moved the
application before Respondent 2 for
enhancement of the compensation on the
basis of arbitral award dated 7.3.2018 and
a legal opinion on this had also been
obtained by the Appellant from the
Advocate on 20.1.2019. Therefore, mere
non-delivery of a signed copy of the award
as contained in Section 31(5) of the
Arbitration Act does not create any
prejudice to the Appellant. Accordingly, in
my considered view, the District Judge has
rightly rejected the appeal/application
moved
under Section
34(2) of
the
Arbitration
Act
on
the
ground
of
limitation."

16. A party which has knowledge
of the contents of an arbitral award,
understands its implications, and begins to
act
upon
it
demonstrates
practical
acknowledgment of the arbitral award. This
behaviour
effectively
nullifies
any
subsequent claims of non-receipt of a
signed copy, as the party has already
engaged with the award substantively.
Courts have often observed that practical
engagement with an arbitral award signifies
awareness, which should trigger the
timelines for any further legal action. The
emphasis on acting upon the award is
crucial. For instance, if a party begins to
comply with the award's directives or uses
the award's findings in subsequent actions,
it indicates a de facto acceptance of the
award. Such actions provide clear evidence
that the party has understood and accepted
the award's contents, thus making any later
claims of non-receipt appear disingenuous.

17. The doctrine of estoppel is vital
in maintaining procedural fairness and
integrity within the arbitration process.
Estoppel prevents a party from taking
inconsistent positions that would harm the
opposing party or undermine the legal
process's credibility. In arbitration, this
doctrine ensures that a party cannot claim
ignorance or non-receipt of an award after
having acted upon it. Estoppel operates to
uphold fairness by ensuring that parties
cannot benefit from their own wrongdoing
or negligence. If a party, aware of the
award, delays raising objections or seeks to
take advantage of procedural nuances to
avoid compliance, estoppel can prevent
such tactics. This doctrine aligns with the
fundamental principles of justice and
equity, ensuring that parties engage with the
arbitration
process
honestly
and
transparently.

18. Courts have often highlighted
that a purely literal interpretation, ignoring
2504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
practical
realities
and
broader
legislative objectives, can lead to unjust
outcomes. A strict literal interpretation
could enable parties to delay or obstruct the
arbitration process by claiming non-receipt
of a signed copy despite being aware of the
award's contents and having acted upon it.
The legislative intent behind Section 31(5)
of the Arbitration Act is to ensure that
parties are adequately informed about the
award to take necessary legal actions within
prescribed
timelines.
Therefore,
an
interpretation that considers the party's
actual awareness and actions, even if a
signed copy was not formally received,
aligns better with the legislative intent and
the principles of justice and equity.

19. The Learned District Judge,
Mathura, was justified in dismissing the
appellant's application under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act as time-barred. The
appellant's awareness of the award and its
subsequent actions negate the claim of nonreceipt of a signed copy. The principle of
estoppel further prevents the appellant from
contradicting
their
previous
acknowledgment of the award. A balanced
interpretation of Section 31(5) of the
Arbitration Act supports the Learned
District
Judge's
decision,
ensuring
procedural fairness and upholding the
Arbitration Act's objectives of expeditious
dispute resolution. The appellant's claim of
patent illegality in the Learned District
Judge's judgment lacks substance. The
decision to dismiss the Section 34
application as time-barred was grounded in
the appellant's evident awareness of the
award and their subsequent actions.

20. In light of the same, this Court
finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order dated
November 16, 2019 passed by the Learned
District Judge, Mathura under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act. The arbitral award
dated July 28, 2016 having attained finality,
cannot be questioned at this stage.

21. Accordingly, the instant
application is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to the costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 2504
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

First Appeal from Order No. 2664 of 2016

Saroj ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Mangla Oil Carier Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Vikash Singh, Nigamendra Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anand Pati Tiwari, Bhartednu Pathak

A. Insurance Law - Compensation - The
amounts, therefore, which were required
to be paid to the deceased by his employer
by way of perks, should be included for
computation of his monthly income as that
would have been added to his monthly
income by way of contribution to the
family as contradistinguished to the ones
which were for his benefit. However, the
Court hastened to add that from the said
amount of income, the statutory amount of tax
payable thereupon must be deducted. (Para 4)

B. Words and Phrases - 'income' - If the
dictionary meaning of the word "income" is
taken to its logical conclusion, it should include
those benefits, either in terms of money or
otherwise, which are taken into consideration
for the purpose of payment of income tax or
professional tax although some elements