Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Monday, 03 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2021-03-02 allowed

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD vs M/S NAVIGANT TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD

Bench: 2 — Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi

In Brief

A corporation and a service provider disputed a call center services agreement, which was referred to a three-member arbitral tribunal. The majority awarded in the service provider's favour on 27 April 2018 orally, but the signed copy was delivered only on 19 May 2018 (after the dissenting opinion was received). The corporation filed objections on 10 September 2018. The lower courts dismissed the objections as barred by limitation, computing the 3-month period from the oral announcement. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period for Section 34 objections commences from the date the signed award is delivered to parties, not from the oral pronouncement or draft circulation. Dissenting opinions are not 'arbitral awards' for limitation purposes. The corporation's objections were therefore timely and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Arbitration Limitation Arbitral Award Section 34 Dissenting Opinion Procedural Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login