Arbitral award limitation starts only on delivery to the party, while notice, jurisdiction, and scope objections were rejected.

For limitation under Section 34(3), a signed arbitral award must be delivered to and received by the party himself; receipt by counsel does not start time, so the Section 34 petition was within time. The Court also held that the petitioner was bound by the arbitration agreement arising from the association's articles and the underlying business arrangement, rejected the claim of non-service where repeated arbitral notices and legal representation were shown, and found that the award did not travel beyond the statement of claim. The arbitral award was sustained and the petition failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petition under Section 34 was barred by limitation because the arbitral award was received by counsel and not by the party; (ii) whether there was no arbitration agreement binding the petitioner; (iii) whether notice of the arbitral proceedings was not served on the petitioner; and (iv) whether the award travelled beyond the statement of claim.

Issue (i): whether the petition under Section 34 was barred by limitation because the arbitral award was received by counsel and not by the party.

Analysis: Section 31(5) requires delivery of a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party, and the period under Section 34(3) begins only when the party making the application receives the award. Delivery to counsel does not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court applied this principle to hold that receipt by the petitioner's advocate could not start limitation.

Conclusion: The objection of limitation failed and the petition was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): whether there was no arbitration agreement binding the petitioner.

Analysis: The dispute arose between members of the association whose articles provided for arbitration of inter se disputes. The petitioner was also treated as having stepped into the shoes of the original borrower in the business concern, and the facts did not justify excluding him from the arbitration clause merely because he signed as guarantor.

Conclusion: The Court held that an arbitration agreement bound the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether notice of the arbitral proceedings was not served on the petitioner.

Analysis: The record showed repeated notices issued by the arbitral forum, including notice of proposed ex parte decision, and the petitioner had also engaged an advocate to represent him. The contention of non-service was unsupported by the record.

Conclusion: The challenge based on want of notice was rejected.

Issue (iv): whether the award travelled beyond the statement of claim.

Analysis: The reference to arbitration and the claim were founded on recovery of the loan amount with interest, including the extended repayment date, and the award did not deal with any matter outside the claim referred for adjudication.

Conclusion: The objection that the award exceeded the statement of claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed on all substantive grounds and the arbitral award was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under Section 34(3), a signed arbitral award must be delivered to and received by the party himself, and not merely by counsel or another agent, before time begins to run.

---