Section 34 review of arbitral notice service and limitation failed; only the costs component was set aside.

In Section 34 proceedings, an arbitral finding on service of arbitration notices was upheld because the notices were sent by registered post to correct addresses and service was supported by the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; the court declined to reappreciate evidence absent perversity or illegality, so the limitation objection failed. The challenge to pre-litigation interest also failed because no such interest had been awarded in the arbitral award. The contractual objection to costs succeeded only to a limited extent, and that part of the award was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside to the extent it granted interest and costs contrary to the contract; (ii) whether the claim was time-barred and whether the notices invoking arbitration were duly served so as to commence arbitration within time.

Issue (i): Whether the arbitral award was liable to be set aside to the extent it granted interest and costs contrary to the contract.

Analysis: The objection regarding pre-litigation interest did not survive because no such interest had in fact been awarded in the arbitral award. As regards costs, the contractual clause dealing with costs was relied upon by the respondent as a basis for setting aside that part of the award, and the objection was accepted. The Court did not disturb the award on this ground beyond the limited relief relating to costs.

Conclusion: The objection on interest failed, while the award of costs was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was time-barred and whether the notices invoking arbitration were duly served so as to commence arbitration within time.

Analysis: The arbitral tribunal had given detailed findings that the invocation notices were sent by registered post to correct addresses, with presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court held that the tribunal's findings were plausible and not perverse, and that a court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not reappreciate evidence as an appellate court. Once service of the notices was upheld, the limitation objection could not succeed.

Conclusion: The claim was not held to be time-barred, and the limitation objection failed against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not warrant interference with the award except for the limited setting aside of costs, and the remaining challenge to the award was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an arbitral finding on service of notice supported by statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 will not be disturbed unless shown to be perverse or illegal; a contractual clause barring interest cannot survive if no such interest is actually awarded, and the court will interfere only to the extent the award is shown to conflict with the contract and the surviving objection is legally sustainable.

---