(Prayer : Petition is filed under Section 34(2)(a)(ii), 34(2)(b)(ii), 34(2A) and Section 16(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Read With Section 10 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 a) to set aside the Award dated 15.09.2025 passed by Learned Arbitrator in respect of Agreement dated 29.11.2016; b) to set aside the order dated 15.09.2025 passed under Section 16 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and c) direct costs to be paid to the petitioner.)

1. Arbitral award dated 15.09.2025 has been assailed by the respondent in arbitral proceedings. Said petition has been opposed by raising a preliminary objection relating to limitation.

2. In support of the contention that the petition is barred by limitation, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the award was signed and despatched by the arbitrator as an attachment to e-mail of 15.09.2025. Therefore, he contends that the period of limitation should be computed from 16.09.2025. If so computed, learned counsel contends that the period of limitation expired on 16.12.2025. Because this Court was functioning on the said date, he contends further that the petitioner is not entitled to exclude the period of the Christmas vacation while computing the limitation period. In view of the fact that the petition was lodged on 02.01.2026, without an application to condone delay, he submits that the petition is barred by limitation.

3. In support of the contention that a digitally signed copy satisfies the requirements of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the A & C Act), he referred to and relied upon the following judgments:

                     (i) Rhino Finance Private Limited v. Golden Bag Technology Private Limited, order dated 09.02.2026 in O.M.P. (Comm) 250/2024, Delhi High Court (Rhino Finance);

                     (ii) J.D. Electrical Products Private Limited v. Purbachal Udyog, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 7001;

4. In support of the contention that the vacation period cannot be excluded in this case, he relied on the order of this Court in General Manager Southern Railway and another v. Eagle-Omega and KR and Co. (JV) represented by its Lead Partner Mr.C.Karnan, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 24354 (General Manager Southern Railway).

5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows:

The e-mail of 15.09.2025 from the arbitrator states that hard printed certified copies would be despatched to both parties after affixing the seal and signature of the arbitrator. He submits that this was done later and that the award was received on 22.09.2025. If computed from 22.09.2025, learned counsel submits that the three month period expired during the Christmas vacation. The Court reopened on 02.01.2026 when the petition under Section 34 was lodged. Hence, he submits that there was no delay in filing the petition. In the alternative, he submits that the award attached to e-mail of 15.09.2025 described the petitioner herein as Chennai Port Trust and not Chennai Port Authority. After a whatsapp message was sent by counsel for the petitioner to the arbitrator and other parties, he submits that the award was corrected and that such corrected award was received on 22.09.2025.

6. The agreed position is that the petition was lodged before this Court on 02.01.2026. This was the first day after Court reopened after the Christmas vacation. If reckoned from 22.09.2025, the petitioner is fully justified in contending that the petition was filed within the three month period of limitation after excluding the Christmas vacation. In the e-mail of 15.09.2025, in relevant part, it was stated as under:

                     “The Signed Award dt. 15.9.2025 pronounced today at 4.30 pm is enclosed herewith for your kind information and needful compliance.

                     The hard printed certified copies taken by the Madras Arbitration Centre will be dispatched to both parties soon after seal and signatures of the Arbitrator. ”

Although the signed award appears to have been attached to this e-mail, the arbitrator has also stated that hard printed certified copies would be despatched to both parties with a seal and signature of the arbitrator. Such copies were admittedly received on 22.09.2025.

7. The alternative submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the award was corrected with regard to the description of the petitioner herein/respondent therein. This contention was opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that there is no pleading in support thereof. The attachment referenced in e-mail of 15.09.2025 mentions final arbitral award in ARB PIGL V. CHPT. There is thus a prima facie indication in the materials on record that the petitioner was referred to as Chennai Port Trust. The award under challenge before this Court describes the petitioner herein as Chennai Port Authority (earlier Chennai Port Trust). Learned counsel for the respondent also concedes that such correction was made. He, however, adds that the correction is immaterial from a limitation stand point because the party remains the same.

8. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent warrant consideration. As regards the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Rhino Finance, the arbitral award was issued on 07.10.2023 and the Section 34 petition was filed on 01.04.2024 on the ground that the copy sent by e-mails had not been received. The Delhi High Court examined the documents on record and found that e-mails had been sent by the petitioner from the same e-mail address on dates subsequent to the date on which the award was despatched to the petitioner by the arbitrator. The petitioner also did not file an application for condonation of delay while filing the petition on 01.04.2024. In those circumstances, after dealing extensively with case laws on the meaning of signed copy of the award, it was held that the petition is barred by limitation. The facts are clearly distinguishable. For the same reason, the judgment of this Court in General Manager Southern Railway is also distinguishable. In that case, the question was whether the Court vacation could be excluded while reckoning the condonable period and whether delay beyond the 30 day period may be condoned and the Court answered in the negative.

9. Section 33 of the A & C Act enables the correction of an award in respect of typographical, clerical, computational or other errors of a similar nature either on application or suo motu. The correction is required to be carried out within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award. The correction, in this case, was clearly carried out within the thirty day time limit. Such correction falls within the clerical error category. In case an award is corrected or a request for correction is rejected, sub-section (3) of Section 34 enables a challenge within three months from the date on which a request for correction is disposed of. Given that the correction requested for by the petitioner was made by the arbitral tribunal and such corrected award was received on 22.09.2025, I conclude that the petitioner is entitled to compute limitation from the said date.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the objection regarding limitation is overruled. List the matter on 21.04.2026.