https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162746 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. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162746 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. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162746