Vijay Mundhra Vs SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

Vijay Mundhra Vs SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. — Arbitration | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; Impugned Order dated 07.07.2023 set aside; ld. ADJ requested to decide the Appellant's application afresh after recording a positive finding as to when the Appellant received the signed copy of the Arbitral Award; parties directed to appear before the concerned ADJ on 18.09.2025; appeal along with pending application disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appeal should be allowed where the ld. ADJ dismissed the Section 34 petition as barred by limitation without recording a finding as to when the copy of the Arbitral Award was served upon / received by the Appellant.

Court's answer

Under Section 34(3) of the AC Act, the period of limitation for filing objections begins from the date on which the party has received the Arbitral Award.

Ratio / Principle

While dismissing the application, the Court is expected to record a finding as to when the party received the Arbitral Award; the ld. ADJ recorded no such finding in the Impugned Order.

Key takeaways

The Impugned Order is set aside and the ld. ADJ is requested to decide the Appellant's application afresh after recording a positive finding as to when the Appellant had received the signed copy of the Arbitral Award.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.) allowed FAO (COMM) 232/2023 against the order dated 07.07.2023 of the ld. ADJ, Rohini Court, dismissing the appellant's petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by limitation. Since limitation under Section 34(3) runs from the date of receipt of the Arbitral Award (award dated 06.12.2010; appellant alleges receipt of copy in October 2016), the Court held that the ADJ ought to have recorded a finding as to when the copy of the award was served, and none was recorded. The Impugned Order was set aside and the ld. ADJ requested to decide the application afresh after recording a positive finding on the date of receipt of the signed copy of the award; parties to appear on 18.09.2025.

$~55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- FAO (COMM) 232/2023, CM APPL. 57266/2023 VIJAY MUNDHRA .....Appellant Through: Mr. A.P. Sidharth, Adv.

versus

SBI CARDS AND PAYMENTS SERVICES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhijeet Saxena, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

O R D E R % 10.09.2025

The present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant assailing the correctness of an order dated 07.07.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Ld. ADJ, Rohini Court, Delhi, whereby a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as „AC Act‟] was dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

It is the case of the Appellant that the Arbitral Award was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator on 06.12.2010 and the Appellant had received the copy of the Arbitral Award, for the first time, in the month of October 2016.

A perusal of the record reflects that the ld. ADJ, while dismissing the application filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay, has not recorded any finding in the Impugned Order as to when the copy of the Arbitral Award was served upon the Appellant.

As per Section 34(3) of the AC Act, the period of limitation for

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 12:24:39

filing the objection begins from the date on which the party has received the Arbitral Award and as such, while dismissing the application, the Court is expected to record such finding in its order. However, no such finding has been recorded by the ld. ADJ in the Impugned Order.

In view of the aforegoing observation, the present Appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order is set aside, while requesting the ld. ADJ to decide the application as filed by the Appellant afresh, after recording a positive finding as to when the Appellant had received the signed copy of the Arbitral Award.

The parties, through their respective counsel, are directed to appear before the concerned ADJ on 18.09.2025.

The present Appeal, along with pending application, stands disposed of.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. SEPTEMBER 10, 2025/jn/hr

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 12:24:39