An arbitral award is valid only if signed by a majority of the tribunal, with reasons for any signature omissions provided; limitation for filing objections commences upon receipt of a valid award.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. No. 3850/2021 (for delay 65 days in filing the petition) & I.A. No. 3851/2021 (for delay of 166 days in re-filing the petition)

1. By way of the afore-noted applications, the Petitioner seeks condonation of delay in filing and re-filing of the objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as the `Act'] assailing the impugned Arbitral Award dated 1st October, 2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of - (i) Mr. A.K. Yadav [presiding Arbitrator], (ii) Mr. R.N. Goel, and (iii) Mr. B.D. Joshi [being the other two member Arbitrators]. The Arbitral Tribunal pronounced the majority Award [2:1] on 1st October, 2019, whereby the claims of the Respondent were allowed. One of the members to the Tribunal, Mr. B.D. Joshi, did not sign the impugned Award.

2. Mr. Keshav Mohan, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the period of limitation under Section 34 (3) of the Act would commence only when a valid Arbitral Award is made. In the instant case, the Arbitral Award dated 1st October, 2019 is not a valid or executable Award on account of being in violation of Section 31 of the Act, and therefore, notwithstanding the delay in filing the petition, the Court may entertain this petition. His contentions are summarized hereinbelow:

2.1. The majority Award dated 1st October, 2019 does not qualify as a valid Award in terms of Section 31 of the Act.

Under Section 29 and 31(2) of the Act, participation and deliberation of all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal is necessary in order to pass a valid Award; in absence whereof, the award is rendered invalid. Mr. B.D. Joshi was not present during the Internal meetings/deliberations conducted for making/publishing of the award. His consent or dissent has not been made part of the Impugned award.

2.2. The majority award is valid only if reasons for omission were supplied.

Under Section 31 (2) of the Act, the signatures of the majority members of the Arbitral Tribunal will be considered sufficient, only if, reasons for the omission of signature of the member of the Arbitral Tribunal who refrained from signing the Arbitral Award are supplied. The reasons stated in the impugned award for the omission are vague. The manner in which the Tribunal has functioned amounts to miscarriage of justice.

2.3. The period of limitation under Section 34 (3) of the Act has not commenced.

It is a settled principle of law that the limitation under Section 34 (3) of the Act can commence only after passing of a valid Award signed by all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. The impugned Award has been signed and passed only by two Arbitrators namely, Mr. A.K. Yadav and Mr. R.N. Goel. Since the signed copy of a legally valid Award by all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal has not been received till date, as provided under Section 31 (1) of the Act, the limitation period under Section 34 (3) has not begun.

2.4. Signing of award is mandatory under Section 31 .

That the signing of the Award is mandatory, in terms of Section 31 of the Act. The learned counsel for the Respondent [i.e. the Claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal] had sent a written communication to the presiding Arbitrator stating that it would be filing an application under Section 29A of the Act seeking extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal. Similar communication was also sent by Mr. B. D Joshi However, all such requests were ignored. The period for rendering the Award and dissenting opinion must be within the period prescribed under Section 29A of