He admitted the deal, took the money, then vanished — and still lost under Section 34.

Two signatures, one appearance, and a plot that changed numbers

Krishan Kumar and his co-petitioner owned a plot of land in Nangal Dewat, New Delhi. They signed an agreement to sell it to Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd. They took the money — substantial sums, paid by Iqbal Singh, a director of the company. They issued receipts. Then they stopped showing up. When the Arbitrator ordered them to execute the sale deed, they waited years — until execution proceedings were underway — to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court of Delhi, through Justice C. Hari Shankar, dismissed their petition on 25 July 2024. The holding: a party who deliberately abandons arbitral proceedings cannot use Section 34 as a second chance to fight facts it chose to ignore.

What the agreement said, and what the sellers did

The story begins with a plot — No. 66, Block D, Nangal Dewat, New Delhi — originally allotted to Zile Singh. On 26 December 2005, an Agreement to Sell (ATS) was executed in favour of Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd. Payments were made. Receipts were issued. The sellers, Krishan Kumar and others, did not execute the sale deed. Shakuntla Agency invoked arbitration.

The Sole Arbitrator entered reference. On 16 November 2007, Krishan Kumar appeared before the Arbitral Tribunal. He admitted execution of the ATS. He admitted receipt of the consideration. He identified his signatures on the agreement. Then he vanished. He filed no Statement of Defence. He led no evidence. He did not appear thereafter. The Arbitrator, on 8 March 2008, passed an award directing specific performance — the sellers were ordered to execute the sale deed in favour of Shakuntla Agency.

That award was not challenged for years. Only when Shakuntla Agency sought execution did Krishan Kumar and his co-petitioner move an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the High Court of Delhi.

The objections the petitioners raised — and why they failed

The petitioners raised several grounds. Each was examined and rejected by Justice C. Hari Shankar.

First objection: the proceedings were ex parte. The Court noted that Krishan Kumar had appeared on the first date, admitted the agreement and payments, and then voluntarily chose not to participate. He was aware of the proceedings. He was given opportunity. He walked away. The proceedings were not ex parte in any sense that could vitiate the award. The Court observed that a party who appears and then deliberately absents itself cannot later complain that the proceedings were conducted in its absence.

Second objection: the ATS was invalid because the allotment letter contained a non-transfer covenant. The petitioners sought to rely on the allotment letter — a document they had never placed before the Arbitral Tribunal. They had never raised any plea based on a restrictive covenant during the arbitration. The Court held that a party cannot rely on a document in Section 34 proceedings if that document was never placed before the Arbitrator and no plea based on it was ever raised. The objection was rejected.

Third objection: the ATS preceded formal allotment. The Court found this argument irrelevant. The ATS was executed on 26 December 2005. The allotment letter, even if issued later, did not invalidate the agreement. The sellers had accepted consideration and issued receipts. They could not now turn around and say the agreement was void ab initio.

Fourth objection: payments were made by a third party. Iqbal Singh, a director of Shakuntla Agency, had made the payments. The receipts were issued in the name of the company. The Court found no merit in this objection — a director paying on behalf of the company is standard commercial practice. The petitioners had admitted receipt of the payments. They could not now dispute the identity of the payor.

Fifth objection: a plot number discrepancy vitiated the Section 21 notice. The petitioners argued that the notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, referred to a different plot number, and therefore the Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction. The Court examined this contention and found it baseless. The notice, the agreement, and the award all pertained to the same property. The discrepancy was typographical at best. The objection was rejected.

The rule the Court applied: no second bite at the arbitral cherry

The core of the judgment is a straightforward principle: Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, does not permit a re-appreciation of facts. A party that deliberately chooses not to participate in arbitral proceedings — that files no defence, leads no evidence, and raises no objections before the Tribunal — cannot later use Section 34 to raise factual objections for the first time.

Justice C. Hari Shankar put it plainly: objections that could have been raised before the Arbitral Tribunal but were deliberately not raised cannot be urged in Section 34 proceedings. The Court is not a forum for a second trial. It is a forum for limited judicial review — and that review does not extend to re-litigating facts that the party chose to abandon.

The Court also held that a party cannot rely on a document in Section 34 proceedings if that document was never placed before the Arbitral Tribunal. The allotment letter containing the alleged non-transfer covenant was never produced during arbitration. The petitioners could not spring it on the Court at the Section 34 stage.

THE PLAY: If you appear before an Arbitral Tribunal, admit the agreement and receipt of consideration, and then walk away, you cannot later use Section 34 to raise factual objections you never raised during arbitration. The Court will not give you a second chance to fight facts you chose to ignore.

What the obiter tells us about credibility

The petitioners also argued that Krishan Kumar was a poor and illiterate villager who was not in a position to contest arbitral proceedings. The Court was not impressed. Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that this contention was "not easily palatable" — especially since Krishan Kumar had signed his name in English, and his signature was not disputed. The Court did not need to decide this point, but the observation is instructive: courts will scrutinise claims of incapacity or ignorance where the documentary record contradicts them.

For practitioners, this is a reminder: if your client has signed documents in English, admitted execution, and then claims illiteracy or poverty as an excuse for non-participation, the Court may treat that argument with scepticism. The obiter is not binding, but it signals a judicial attitude that is unlikely to change.

Why this matters for advocates, CFOs, and founders

For advocates, the judgment is a crisp restatement of the limits of Section 34. The Court will not re-appreciate facts. It will not entertain objections that could have been — but were not — raised before the Arbitral Tribunal. If your client has a factual defence, raise it during arbitration. Do not wait for the Section 34 challenge. The door closes at the award.

For CFOs and in-house counsel, the judgment is a cautionary tale about the cost of delay. The award was passed in 2008. The Section 34 petition was filed years later, only when execution was sought. The Court dismissed it. The company that won the award had to wait over a decade to enforce it. If you are the award-holder, move quickly to enforce. If you are the award-debtor, do not assume you can sit on your hands and then challenge the award at the execution stage. The Court will not entertain you.

For founders and business owners, the lesson is simple: if you sign an agreement, accept payment, and then refuse to perform, arbitration will hold you to your word. If you choose not to participate in the arbitration, you lose the right to challenge the facts later. The system is designed to give you one fair hearing. If you walk away from it, you cannot come back years later and ask for a second chance.

The bottom line

Krishan Kumar & Anr v. Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd is a textbook application of the principle that Section 34 is not a second trial. A party that appears, admits the agreement and payments, and then deliberately abandons the arbitration cannot later raise factual objections for the first time in a Section 34 petition. The award stands. The sale deed must be executed. The petition is dismissed.