Limitation for challenging arbitral awards starts on effective delivery to the officer handling the case in a large organisation.

For limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the relevant receipt of an arbitral award is delivery to the officer functionally acting as the party in a large Government organisation, not mere inward receipt in a general office. Delivery under Section 31(5) is substantive because it triggers limitation under Sections 33 and 34. On the facts, the Chief Engineer was directly connected with and controlled the arbitration proceedings, had represented the Union of India, and received the award on 19.3.2001. Receipt earlier in the General Manager's inward office did not start limitation, so the Section 34 application was within time and the High Court erred in treating it as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of limitation under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, receipt of the arbitral award by the departmental head in a large Government organisation or receipt by the General Manager constitutes the effective date of delivery and receipt by the party.

Analysis: The limitation period for an application to set aside an arbitral award begins from the date on which the party making the application has received the award. In the case of a large organisation such as the Railways, the expression "party" must be understood functionally to mean the officer who is directly connected with, and in control of, the arbitration proceedings and who can properly assess the award and take a decision on challenge. Delivery of the award under Section 31(5) is not a mere formality, because that delivery triggers the limitation periods under Sections 33 and 34. On the facts, the Chief Engineer was the officer directly concerned with the arbitration, had represented the Union of India in the proceedings, and had received the award on 19.3.2001. Receipt in the General Manager's inward office on an earlier date was not sufficient to start limitation.

Conclusion: The effective date of receipt was 19.3.2001, the application under Section 34 was within limitation apart from a condonable delay, and the High Court erred in treating it as time-barred.

---