Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/s. S.R. Engineering Construction Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10621/2024]
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 15 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India, in Krishna Devi @ Sabitri Devi (Rani) M/s. S.R. Engineering Construction vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No. 10621/2024], delivered its judgment on January 3, 2025, clarifying the commencement of the limitation period for filing objections to an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Facts and Background
The appellant’s husband, proprietor of M/s S.R. Engineering Construction, secured an arbitral award dated May 31, 2022, directing the respondents (Union of India and others) to pay ₹1.33 crores along with 9% interest. However, the formal publication of the award was delayed due to unpaid arbitrator fees by the respondents. On September 21, 2022, the District Judge directed the respondents to clear the dues, effectively notifying them of the award’s existence. The respondents only received formal notice on November 18, 2022, after paying the fees.
The appellant filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act on November 10, 2022, seeking enforcement of the award. The trial court and the High Court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the limitation period for filing objections began only upon formal receipt of notice on November 18, 2022.
Legal Issue
The key question was whether the limitation period under Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, for filing objections to an arbitral award starts from the date the party becomes aware of the award’s existence or from the date of formal notice of the award.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, held that the limitation period commences when the party is aware of the award’s existence, not necessarily upon receiving formal notice. The Court emphasized that the law aims to prevent procedural technicalities from obstructing justice.
It observed that the respondents were aware of the award by September 21, 2022, when the District Judge directed payment of arbitrator fees, which sufficed as notice of the award’s existence. The Court relied on established precedents affirming that knowledge or notice of the award triggers the limitation period, regardless of formal communication.
The Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and High Court, allowing the appellant’s appeal and directing that the Section 17 application be considered on merits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that:
The limitation period for challenging an arbitral award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act starts from the date the party becomes aware of the award’s existence.
Formal notice is not a prerequisite to trigger the limitation period.
Procedural formalities should not be used to delay or deny justice.
The decision promotes timely resolution and enforcement of arbitration awards.
This judgment reinforces the principle of efficient dispute resolution in arbitration, ensuring that parties cannot evade or delay enforcement by relying on technicalities related to formal notice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments