JUDGMENT :

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties. Mr. R.L. Khapre, learned senior counsel with Advocate Mr. D.R. Khapre waive notice on behalf of the respondent on merits.

2. All these petitions raise a common plea and therefore are being decided by this common judgment.

3. The basic proposition canvassed is that the petitioner, who was a party to the award dated 27.01.2015, passed by the Arbitrator (Shri G.N. Diwekar) had not received the signed copy of the award within the meaning of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the “A & C Act”), and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the A & C Act, the award was not enforceable. It is also contended, that the receipt of the certified copy of the award, which is claimed to have been received by post on 07.03.2015, cannot be considered to be an act in compliance with Section 31(5) of the A & C Act. It is contended, that though the application under Section 34 of the A & C Act, was filed on the basis of the certified copy received on 07.03.2015, that would not deter from the compliance of the requirement of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, in absence of which the award could not be put to execution, in light of mandate of Section 36(1) of the A & C Act.

3.1. Mr. Bhattad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the above propositions, places reliance upon the following judgments :-

(a) Union Of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239, in which it has been held, that the provisions of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act, is not mere formality but is a matter of substance since service of the award upon the party sets into motion several periods of limitation and also brings into effect the termination of the arbitration proceedings under Section 32 (1) of the A & C Act.

(b) Benarsi Krishna Committee and Others Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited, (2012) 9 SCC 496, in which reiterating the above position, it has been held, that service of the award upon the Advocate of the party would not amount to service of the award upon the party.

(c) State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Ark Builders Private Limited, (2011) 4 SCC 616, which reiterates the position, that receipt of the award by the counsel would not amount to receipt of the award by the party.

(d) Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Surendra Nath Jolly and others, 2016 (5) Mh.L.J. 250, again holding that the collection of the award by the counsel for the respondents in pursuance to receipt of an email from the Arbitrator would not amount to compliance of Section 31(5) of the A & C Act.

(e) Ramesh Pratap Singh (Dead) And other Vs. Smt. Vimla Singh And Ors., 2011 (1) MPHT 197, which reiterates the same position.

3.2. It is, therefore, submitted, that the execution proceedings filed by the respondent, are premature and cannot be permitted to be proceeded with. It is also contended, that even the respondent has not received the signed copy of the award, as the execution proceedings have been filed not on the basis of the signed copy of the award but on the basis of the certified copy.

3.3. Learned counsel further submits, that the statement made in the application under Section 34 of the A & C Act to the effect, that the application has been filed within the limitation upon receipt of the signed copy of the award is factually incorrect which would be indicated from the fact that the certified copy of the award was filed along with the said application and not the signed copy.

3.4. It is, therefore, submitted that the execution proceedings have to held to be infirm, on the above grounds and therefore ought to be held as premature, by setting aside the impugned order and allowing the application filed by the petitioner.

4. Mr. Khapre, learned senior counsel for the respondent, heavily relies upon the statement of the petitioner in the application under Section 34 of the A & C Act (page 100), in