- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8478 OF 2025 (AA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRCT - 563 160 ALSO AT:- NO.204, A BLOCK SRIMITRA SPRING VALLEY APARTMENT KAIKONDRAHALLI CARMALARAM POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035 2. SRI V. NAGARAJ S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.204, A BLOCK SRIMITRA SPRING VALLEY APARTMENT KAIKONDRAHALLI CARMALARAM POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 3. SRI V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENAKTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NO.27B, GAYITHRI LAYOUT SARJAPURA ROAD KAIDONDRAHALLI CARMALARAM POST BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035 4. SMT. RAJAMMA D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY W/O JAYARAMAREDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.318 MARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD RAILWAY STATION LAYOUT OUTER RING ROAD PANTHUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 103 5. SMT. PADMA D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY W/O GIRISH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKKUR VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 160 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MAHESH REDDY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SHARAVANAMURTHY S S/O LATE V. SUBRAMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT RAJAMMAL NILAYAM D.V.G. ROAD NARAYANAREDDY LAYOUT RAMAMURTHY NAGARA BENGALURU - 560 016 2. KUM. ASHWINI D/O LATE V. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT NANJAPURA VILLAGE JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT 3. SMT. NEELAMMA D/O LATE VENKATASWAMY W/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.14 GAYITHRI LAYOUT SARJAPURA ROAD KAIKONDRAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 560 035 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.V.GIRIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.S.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/09/2025 PASSED IN A.P.NO.214/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR (ANNEXURE - A); AND ALSO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ARBITRAL AWARD DATED 03/11/2022 PASSED BY THE - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 HON'BLE SOLE ARBITRATOR IN A.C.NO.226/2021 (ANNEXURE - H) & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are dispensed with. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act], impugning an order dated 22.09.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar [District Court] in A.P.No.214/2024 captioned as 'Smt. Muthamma and others v. Sri Sharavana Murthy S., and others'. 3. The appellants had filed the said application under Section 34 of the A&C Act impugning an arbitral award dated 03.11.2022 [impugned award] rendered by an arbitral tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator [the Arbitral Tribunal] in A.C.No.226/2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 4. The learned District Judge had rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation as stipulated under Section 34(3) of the A&C Act and the Court did not have jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days from the expiry of the period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the award. Section 34(3) of the A&C Act is relevant and is set out below. 34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.— ** ** ** ** (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. 5. It is apparent from the above that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside the award under Section 34 of the A&C Act would commence from the date of receipt of the arbitral award. In the present case, the District Judge has found that the appellants had due notice of the arbitral proceedings. The arbitral award also indicates that notices had been sent to the appellants. 6. The appellants did not participate in the arbitral proceedings. However, the question whether the appellants were aware of the arbitral proceedings and had willfully refrained from participating in the said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 proceedings is not relevant to determine whether the application to set aside the impugned award was filed within the period of limitation. 7. The learned District Court had proceeded on the premise that there was a delay of 1 year, 10 months and 11 days in filing the application under Section 34 of the A&C Act. However, there is no discussion as to the date on which the arbitral award was served or delivered or deemed to be delivered to the appellants. The appellants also proceeded on an erroneous premise that there was a delay in filing the application and accordingly filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 8. In view of the above, we had adjourned the said proceedings to enable the learned counsel to ascertain when the impugned award was delivered to the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly states that, on inquiry, it is revealed that the impugned award was not dispatched to the appellants. The appellants claim that they became aware of the impugned award during the execution proceedings and obtained a certified copy of it on 05.09.2024. 9. In the given facts, we must accept that the impugned award was delivered to the appellants on 05.09.2024. The application to set aside the impugned award (A.P.No.214/2024) was filed on 14.10.2024. This was within the period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2164-DB MFA No. 8478 of 2025 impugned award, and therefore, the application was within the time stipulated for preferring an application for setting aside the award. 10. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellants’ application to set aside the impugned award is restored before the learned District Court for consideration on merits. 11. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge for further proceedings on 22.01.2026. We request the learned District Court to dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible. 12. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15