An arbitral award signed by a majority of the arbitrators is valid and enforceable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the omission of one arbitrator's signature does not affect the validity of the award.

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) THE Chamber Summons before the court is filed in aid of an application for the execution of an arbitral award. The arbitral proceedings were governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral tribunal consisted of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. H. Kania, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. R. Dhanuka. Mr. Justice M. H. Kania and Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar made and signed their award on 18th February, 2004. Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar died on 28th February, 2004. The third Arbitrator signed and delivered a Dissenting award on 4th March, 2004. There was no challenge to the award under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" ). In execution, the defence that has been set up on behalf of the first respondent is that an award which is made and signed by two of the learned arbitrators is not a valid award in law. That defence falls for consideration. Before dealing with the rival contentions some of the prefatory facts will have to be narrated.

( 2 ) A Deed of Trust was executed on 11th september, 1954 by Mr. Framroz Rustomji damania. The Settlor expired on 2nd May, 1979. He left behind applicant No. 1, respondent No. 1, respondent No. 4, one ferny rustom Dubash and Nargesh Framroz damania. Freny died in May, 1992 and her legal heirs are the 6th and 7th applicants. Nargesh was single until her death in September, 1998. Disputes arose and, on 10th december, 2003, an arbitration agreement was arrived at between the parties to refer them to arbitration. Mr. Justice M. H. Kania and Mr. Justice D. R. Dhanuka were nominated by the parties. Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar was appointed as Presiding Arbitrator. The main issue in controversy between the parties was whether (as contended by the applicants and by the 4th respondent), the trust came to an end on the death of the settlor, or whether (as contended by the first, second and third respondents), the trust would come to an end on the death of the last surviving daughter of the settlor. The genesis of the dispute was whether the proceeds of the sale of the trust property could be retained and managed by trie trust. After the reference was made to the Arbitral Tribunal, joint deliberations took before the arbitral Tribunal. The fact that there were joint deliberations between the arbitrators has not been denied in the pleadings. On 18th february, 2004 an award was made and signed by Mr. Justice M. H. Kania and by Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar: (i) Declaring that the trust came to an end on the death of the settlor; (ii) Directing that the properties and funds of the trust be distributed to the beneficiaries in the following proportion:

Applicant

No. 1

25%

Applicant

No. 6

15%

Applicant

No. 7

10%

Respondent

No. 1

25%

Respondent

No. 4

25%

and (iii) Directing that necessary steps for implementing the award be initiated by the Trustees within a period of 3 months.

( 3 ) ON 28th February, 2004, Mr. Justice m. N. Chandurkar died. On 4th March, 2004, mr. D. R. Dhanuka recorded his reasons for not agreeing with the award of the majority and made and signed what is referred to by the learned Arbitrator as a "dissenting award". On 13th March, 2004, parties are stated to have received the arbitral award of the two learned Arbitrators together with the reasons for dissent of the third Arbitrator. A considerable amount of correspondence thereafter ensued to which a detailed reference would not be necessary in view of the fact that the parameters of the challenge have been confined, as recorded hereafter, to what was urged during the course of the submissions.

( 4 ) DURING the course of the correspondence, mr. Justice M. H. Kania by letter a dated 3rd may, 2004 clarified the factual position thus-

"as you know, in the above arbitration, Mr. Justice M. N. Chandurkar expired some time in the end of February, 2004. Prior to that, Justice Chandurkar and I had made our award on 18th February, 2004. Mr. Jus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document