Section 34(5) notice and affidavit requirement is directory, so non-compliance does not invalidate an arbitral award challenge.

Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, requiring prior notice to the other party and an accompanying affidavit before filing a challenge to an arbitral award, is directory rather than mandatory. The provision's procedural object is to expedite disposal of Section 34 applications, and the absence of any express consequence for non-compliance indicates that it was not intended as a condition precedent. Accordingly, failure to give prior notice or file the supporting affidavit does not render the Section 34 petition non est, and the challenge remains maintainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 34(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires prior notice to the other party and an accompanying affidavit before filing a Section 34 application, is mandatory or directory.

Analysis: The provision uses mandatory language, but its scheme shows that it is procedural and intended to expedite disposal of challenges to arbitral awards. The absence of any express consequence for non-compliance, the wording of Section 34(1) and Section 34(6), and the contrast with provisions in the same Act that expressly provide consequences for breach, indicate that the requirement was not meant to operate as a condition precedent. The Court preferred the line of authority treating similar procedural time-limit provisions as directory where no penal consequence follows, and rejected the analogy that would make the omission fatal. The object of the amendment was to speed up proceedings, not to defeat adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: Section 34(5) is directory and not mandatory; failure to give prior notice or file the supporting affidavit does not render the Section 34 petition non est.

---