Directory procedural requirements under Section 34 do not defeat an arbitral challenge for absence of prior notice.

Section 34(5) and 34(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were analysed as procedural requirements governing prior notice, affidavit of compliance, and expeditious disposal of an application to set aside an arbitral award. Applying settled principles of statutory interpretation, the text notes that a provision is not mandatory merely because it uses "shall"; legislative intent, statutory purpose, and the effect of either construction are decisive. Because these sub-sections contain no express consequence for non-compliance and are intended to facilitate procedure rather than control the substantive challenge, they are treated as directory. The omission of prior notice therefore does not, by itself, defeat maintainability.

---

---

Issues: Whether sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are mandatory or directory, and whether the absence of prior notice under Section 34(5) rendered the application for setting aside the arbitral award not maintainable.

Analysis: The substantive grounds for setting aside an arbitral award lie in sub-sections (2) and (2A) of Section 34, while sub-section (3) prescribes limitation. Sub-section (5) concerns the mode of filing by requiring prior notice and an affidavit of compliance, and sub-section (6) provides for expeditious disposal. These provisions contain no express consequence for non-compliance. The Court applied settled principles that the word "shall" is not atory by itself and that the mandatory or directory character of a provision depends on legislative intent, the object of the statute, and the consequences of either construction. As the challenged provisions are procedural and meant to facilitate expeditious disposal, treating them as mandatory would defeat the substantive right to challenge an award within limitation.

Conclusion: Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 34 are directory, not mandatory, and the petitioner's application could not be rejected for the initial omission of prior notice.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to maintainability failed, and the Section 34 proceedings were permitted to continue with the application treated as effectively filed on the date of the original presentation.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural requirement in a statute that prescribes no penalty or consequence for non-compliance, and whose mandatory construction would impair the substantive remedy, is ordinarily directory rather than mandatory.

---