The High Court of Delhi, presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has dismissed an objection petition challenging an interim arbitral award on the grounds of being barred by limitation, while simultaneously directing the enforcement of the award in a connected execution petition. The court ruled that a party who actively participates in implementing a consensual arbitral award and accepts benefits from it cannot later challenge its validity under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, especially after an inordinate delay.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose among three brothers—Shri Vinay Mawandia (the petitioner), and Shri Bimal Mawandia and Shri Bijay Mawandia (the respondents)—who shared a common ancestor, Late Mr. Bala Prasad Mawandia. The family jointly managed their family business and group companies.
In or around 2019, the brothers agreed to divide several properties owned by the family or their group companies. They executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated February 27, 2019, delineating the properties and the manner of their division. However, disputes subsequently arose, and the MoU was not acted upon.
To resolve these disputes, the parties entered into an Arbitration Agreement on June 13, 2021, referring their disputes to a three-member arbitral tribunal specifically named in the agreement. Following a meeting conducted through video conferencing, the arbitral tribunal passed an Interim Award on November 13, 2021, which issued directions in respect of two immovable properties: property bearing No. A-175 Sushant Lok, Phase 1, Gurugram, Haryana (“Subject Property”), and property bearing No. 24/25 Dobson Road, Howrah, West Bengal (“Second Property”).
On the day of the award, an unsigned copy was posted on a joint WhatsApp group containing the family members and the arbitral tribunal. In January 2024, the petitioner filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the award, asserting that he only received a signed copy of the award after the respondents initiated execution proceedings in 2023.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that the Interim Award was perverse, illegal, and passed without following any proper procedure. The primary contentions raised by the petitioner were:
- The arbitrators failed to seek any claims or counterclaims from the parties.
- The award lacked reasoning and was passed arbitrarily, violating Section 31 of the Act.
- The tribunal exceeded its authority by directing the transfer of ownership rights in the Gurugram property, which was co-owned by Mrs. Madhu Mawandia, Mrs. Uma Mawandia, and Mr. Vikash Mawandia, none of whom were signatories to the arbitration agreement.
- The award bore the signatures of only two out of the three members of the tribunal, without stating any reason for the omitted signature of the third member, violating Section 31(1) and (2).
- The limitation period under Section 34(3) did not commence because a signed copy of the award was never formally delivered to him.
The respondents vehemently opposed the petition, challenging its maintainability on the ground of limitation. Their key arguments were:
- The petition was barred by limitation under Section 34(3), having been filed more than three years after the award was rendered on November 13, 2021, and was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay.
- The petitioner was fully aware of the award as he acknowledged its receipt on the family WhatsApp group with the text “Noted thanks” on the day it was posted.
- Both parties had actively taken steps to implement the terms of the award, including exchanging draft transfer and gift deeds, negotiating bank clearances with Deutsche Bank to exit personal guarantees, and partially removing movable assets from the Gurugram property.
- Under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the petitioner could not challenge the validity of an award after consciously accepting its terms and reaping its benefits.
- Mrs. Madhu Mawandia was fully aware of the proceedings, had participated in them, and had also accepted the benefits of the award.
The Court’s Analysis
The court focused its inquiry on whether the objection petition was barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the Act. Section 34(3) prescribes a strict three-month limit for filing objections, with a maximum extendable period of thirty days upon showing sufficient cause, “but not thereafter.”
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that the language of Section 34(3) is mandatory and places a complete embargo on condoning delay beyond the additional thirty days. The court referenced the Supreme Court judgments in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. and Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, which established that applications filed beyond this strict statutory timeline cannot be entertained.
Regarding the petitioner’s argument that the limitation period did not commence due to the non-delivery of a signed copy of the award, the court analyzed the extensive WhatsApp communications and the subsequent conduct of the parties. The court observed that the petitioner had actively participated in drafting transfer deeds, setting conditions for the execution of deeds, and seeking bank clearances.
On the nature of the award, the court observed: “The Impugned Award was not the outcome of a contested adjudicatory process but was rendered upon the consensus and mutual understanding arrived at between the parties.”
The court held that the petitioner’s active participation in implementing the award was entirely inconsistent with his subsequent legal challenge. Invoking the doctrine of estoppel and election, the court noted: “The doctrine that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate is founded upon the elementary principle that one who knowingly accepts benefits flowing from a transaction cannot subsequently challenge the validity of the very transaction.”
Applying the principles laid down in Midpoint Commodeal Private Limited v Fidatocity Homes Private Limited & Ors. regarding consensus ad idem under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the court held that the parties mutually agreed to the essential terms of the settlement, which were subsequently recorded in the award.
The court rejected the petitioner’s argument concerning the rights of Mrs. Madhu Mawandia, noting that she had participated in the proceedings, accepted the benefits, and chose not to challenge the award herself. The court ruled that the petitioner could not challenge the award on behalf of a third party.
Additionally, the technical objection regarding the missing signature of the third arbitrator was rejected as the petitioner had accepted the award and proceeded to implement it without demur for over two years.
Concluding on the issue of limitation and delay, the court held: “The present Petition, instituted only after commencement of execution proceedings and unsupported by any application seeking condonation of delay or any satisfactory explanation for the prolonged inaction, is hopelessly barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act.”
The Decision
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the objection petition (O.M.P. 3/2024) and all pending applications, declaring them barred by limitation, and declined to examine the merits of the petitioner’s grounds.
Turning to the execution petition (EX.P. 82/2023), the court found no legal impediment to enforcing the interim award. Consequently, the court directed the judgment debtor, Vinay Mawandia, to transfer the property bearing No. A-175, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurugram, in favor of the decree holders (Bimal and Bijay Mawandia) within six weeks from the date of the order, in accordance with the procedure and mechanism stipulated in the Interim Award.
The execution matter has been listed before the Roster Bench on August 20, 2026, to monitor compliance.
Case Details
Case Title: Vinay Mawandia v. Bimal Mawandia & Anr. (and connected execution matter)
Case No.: O.M.P. 3/2024 & I.A. 3246/2024 (Stay) and EX.P. 82/2023 & EX.APPL. (OS) 1564/2023
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: July 6, 2026
