STATE OF WEST BENGAL versus SREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 08-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/~ 
y 
~ 
; 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
SREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Arbitration Act, 1940: 
Sections 14 to 16, 28 and 30-Unsigned award by Arbitrator-
Whether can be made rule of the Court-Whether Court can cure this 
formal defect by remitting award for signature. 
There was a dispute between the first respondent and the appel· 
!ant in respect of Silt Clearance of River Peali from Uttarbhag Canning 
Road Bridge up to Bohon Sluice. The matter was referred to the 
Arbitrator, who made his award. The respondent was paid a sum of 
Rs.32,525.62 in terms of the award, and a true copy of the award was 
forwarded to the Court. 
The first respondent filed an application under Sections 14, 15, 16 
and 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the award. A 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application and passsed a 
A 
B 
c 
D 
--< 
judgment in terms of the award. The Division Bench having allowed the 
E 
appeal of the respondent, the matter again came up before the Single 
Judge, who allowed the application of the respondent under Section 5, 
\ 
11 and 12 of the Act and appointed a retire Judge of the High Court as 
arbitrator and later revoked the authority of the said arbitrator and 
appointed a lawyer of the High Court as arbitrator. 
The appellant filed an appeal against the said decision to the 
Division Bench, which held that as there was an extension of time in 
making the award and the award having been filed within the extended 
time, the award was not beyond time. However, it held that an unsigned 
award could not be made a rule of the Court. 
Disposing of the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: Under law, the mandatory rule is that the award should 
F 
G 
be signed by the Arbitrator. No doubt an unsigned award cannot be 
made a rule of the Court. But it is only a formal defect. The Court, in 
such circumstances, can extend time for making the award and direct 
H 
69 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1988] l S.C.R. 
A 
curing of the formal defect in the award. So much time and effort 
......
should not be allowed to go waste. Law must subserve justice and 
endeavour to serve the purpose oflaw. [ 7 IF-GI 
In the instant case, the award was handed over to the parties and 
a letter was sent to the parties concerned and award bore no signature 
B 
of the Arbitrator. The parties acted upon the award. In a situation of 
this nature, the proper order in the interest of justice would be to remit 
the award, under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, for enabling the 
"'-< 
Arbitrator named therein for signing the award and for that purpose if it Is 
~ 
under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, the Court has the power to 
extend the time to the Arbitrator for making the award final. [71F. H; 72A-B] 
c 
Accordingly, the time is extended by four months and the award j 
remitted to the Arbitrator for signature. [72B] 
)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2190 
of 1987. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29th August, 1986 of the 
Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 204 of 1986. 
Amal Dutta, D.K. Sinha and J.R. Das forthe Appellant. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave granted. 
This is an appeal challenging the decision of the High Court of 
Calcutta upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge of that 
F 
Court whereby the award of the arbitrator was set aside and new 
arbitrator was appointed. In order to appreciate the position it is 
>
necessary to state that in the year 1964 the Executive Engineer had 
invited competitive sealed tenders in respect of "Silt Clearance of 
River Peali from Utterbhag Canning Road Bridge upto Hobon 
Sluice". Shri D.P. Chatterjee entered upon the reference soon there-
G 
after and the award was made in November, 1966. It appears that 
thereafter the respondent asked for the award amount in full and final 
settlement which the Executive Engineer turned down. The respon-
dent herein was paid by the appellant a sum of Rs.32,525.62 in terms 
of the award and which sum was received and acknowledged by the 
>-
respondent No. I. Then the true copy of the award was forwarded to 
H 
the Court by the Chief Executive Engineer and the application was 
STATEOFWESTBENGAL v. SREESREEMAENGG. [MUKHARJI,J.) 
71 
.A 
filed by the respondent No. 1 in 1981 in the High Court of Calcutta 
A 
under Sections 14, 15, 16 & 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting 
asid
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.