The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to set aside an interim arbitral award after finding that the challenge was filed well beyond the statutory limitation period. The Court held that a party which had acknowledged the award, participated in its implementation, and accepted its benefits could not later question its validity after execution proceedings had begun.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of a family settlement concerning the division of certain immovable properties. Following disagreements over a Memorandum of Understanding executed in 2019, the parties entered into an arbitration agreement in June 2021 and referred their disputes to a three-member arbitral tribunal.
An interim award was passed on November 13, 2021. Several years later, one of the parties approached the Delhi High Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the award. Simultaneously, execution proceedings were pending for enforcement of the same award.
Court's Observations
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar first examined whether the challenge to the arbitral award had been filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged receipt of the award in a WhatsApp group immediately after it was shared and thereafter actively participated in discussions regarding its implementation. The record also showed exchanges relating to transfer deeds, gift deeds, bank approvals and possession of properties.
Observing that the petitioner's conduct was inconsistent with a later challenge to the award, the Court said:
“Having consciously accepted the Impugned Award as a consensual resolution of their disputes and having acted upon the same without protest, the Petitioner cannot now be permitted to approbate and reprobate by questioning the very Award which had been accepted and sought to be implemented.”
The Court further found that the petition had been filed without any application seeking condonation of delay and contained no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction.
It observed:
“The present challenge... is not only barred by limitation but is also contrary to the Petitioner's own conduct, which unequivocally demonstrates acceptance of the Impugned Award as a binding and consensual determination of the disputes.”
The High Court also rejected objections regarding the award affecting the rights of a non-petitioner and the contention that the award bore only two signatures, holding that such objections could not be raised after the petitioner had knowingly accepted and acted upon the award for years.
Decision
Holding that the petitioner had full knowledge of the arbitral award, had acknowledged it, participated in its implementation and failed to challenge it within the statutory period, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Since the challenge to the award failed, the Court also found no legal impediment to the continuation of the execution proceedings for enforcement of the award.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr.
Case Number: O.M.P. 3/2024 (connected with EX.P. 82/2023)
Judge: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Decision Date: 06 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
