Delhi High Court Rules on WhatsApp Acknowledgment of Arbitral Awards

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has determined that a party acknowledging an arbitral award via WhatsApp and subsequently acting on it cannot later contest the award after execution proceedings commence. This decision was made in the case of Vinay Mawandia vs. Bimal Mawandia, where Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The petitioner, Vinay Mawandia, sought to overturn an interim arbitral award related to a family property dispute. His petition was challenged by two brothers who argued that it was filed beyond the statutory limitation period for appeals under the Arbitration Act. Vinay contended that he had not received a signed copy of the award and only became aware of it when execution proceedings were initiated.

The court found that the arbitral award had been shared in a WhatsApp group established for resolving disputes within the Mawandia family. Vinay Mawandia responded to the group message with “Noted thanks,” which the court interpreted as more than a mere acknowledgment, as it was followed by discussions on implementing the award.

“The material placed on record unmistakably demonstrates that immediately after the award was uploaded in the WhatsApp group, the petitioner acknowledged receipt thereof by responding ‘Noted thanks.’ Such acknowledgment was not a mere formal response but was followed by continuous discussions among the parties regarding the implementation of the award. These discussions were not unilateral communications by the respondents but involved active participation of the petitioner,” the court stated.

The dispute involved the Mawandia brothers, who had previously managed a family business. In 2019, they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to divide certain family and group-company properties. After disputes arose, they entered into an arbitration agreement in June 2021, and the arbitral tribunal issued an interim award on November 13, 2021, concerning two properties. When execution petitions were filed by Bimal and Bijay Mawandia, Vinay filed a Section 34 petition in 2024 to challenge the award.

Vinay argued that the limitation period had not begun, as he had not received a signed copy of the award as required under Section 31(5) of the Act. He also claimed the award affected the rights of Madhu Mawandia, who was not a party to the arbitration, and noted that the award was signed by only two of the three arbitrators.

The court dismissed these arguments, highlighting that Vinay had participated in discussions about preparing gift deeds, transfer deeds, and other steps necessary for implementing the award. His active involvement and conditions for execution indicated acceptance of the award.

The court emphasized that a consensual and mutually accepted award holds significant sanctity. In the absence of fraud, coercion, or other vitiating factors, a party cannot withdraw from such a settlement simply due to a change of heart. The petition was deemed barred by limitation, as Vinay had acknowledged and acted upon the award in November 2021 but only challenged it post-execution proceedings.

Advocates Amit Bhagat and Arzoo Raj represented Vinay Mawandia, while Niyati Kohli, Rishabh Parikh, and Pratham Vir Agarwal represented Bimal and Bijay Mawandia.