( 1 ) THE agreement was signed by the defendant but the plaintiff did not sign it even though the contract was in his custody. The Corporation suggested a revised draft agreement to which the defendant did not agree Howevre, during the pendency of the petition filed by the defendant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the Commissiener, Municipal Corporation, signed the contract. The questions which arose for decision were (1) whether the contract was valid and (2) whether it could be ratified.

( 2 ) HELD that: After referring to Sections 2ui and 203 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act it was held that every contract entered into by the Commissioner, the common seal of the Corporation has to be affixed. It has to be signed by the Commissioner or a person duly authorised by him. The common seal of the Corporation has to be affixed in the presence of a member of the Standing Committee who shall sign the contract in token that the same was sealed in his presence. Then the document has to be signed by a witness to the execution of such contract. The admitted position is that on behalf of the Commissioner the contract was not signed nor was the common seal of the Corporation affi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document