STATE OF WEST BENGALversusSREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR.

                       STATE OF WEST BENGAL
/~                               v.
                                                                                   A
                 SREE SREE MA ENGINEERING & ANR.

                              SEPTEMBER 8, 1987

      [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.]                                      B

 y         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.

~
                                                                                   c
            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         D
      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
--<   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.
                                                                                   F
            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.
                                                                                   G
            Disposing of the appeal by special leave, this Court,

            HELD: Under law, the mandatory rule is that the award should
      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.

    curing of the formal defect in the award. So much time and effort              ......
A
    should not be allowed to go waste. Law must subserve justice and
    endeavour to serve the purpose oflaw. [7IF-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
    remitted to the Arbitrator for signature. [72B]
                                                                                  j
                                                                                    )
          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

          filed by the respondent No. 1 in 1981 in the High Court of Calcutta A
    .A    under Sections 14, 15, 16 & 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting
          aside the award dated the 19th November, 1966. Tue High Court after
          hearing the parties dismisoed that application on 10th May, 1982. The
          High Court was thereafter pleased to pass judgment in terms of the
          award. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the judg-
          men! dated 10.5.82. Tue Division Bench allowed the appeal of the B
          appellant. The appellant's advocate did not notice that the matter
          appeared in the daily list dated 26th April, 1985 of the learned Single
   ),-'
          Judge for judgment and as such he did not know the result of the
          judgment. Thereafter the matter again appeared in the list of the
          learned Single Judge and the respondent had made an application


~
          before the learned Single Judge for setting aside the previous order.
          The learned Single Judge on 18th March, 1986 rejected the application
                                                                                  c
          of the appellant and allowed the application of the respondent herein
   ~      under Section 5, 11 and l2 of the Arbitration Act and appointed a
          retired Judge of the High Court as the arbitrator and thereafter
          revoked the authority of the said arbitrator from acting as the
          arbitrator and appointed a lawyer of the High Court as the arbitrator. D
          The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order dated the 3rd
          December, 1985 before the Division Bench of the High Court of
          Calcutta.

                Two points were raised before the learned Single Judge, firstly
  "\      that the award was beyond time and secondly, the learned arbitrator     E
          had not signed the award. Tue Division Bench found that as there was
          an extension of time in making the award and the award having been
          filed within the extended time, expressed the view that there was no
          force in the first point. Tue Division Bench, however, was unable to
          accept unsigned award being made the rule of the Court.
                                                                                  F
               It is true that an unsigned award cannot be made the rule of the
  \       Court. But it is only a formal defect. It appears that the award was
          handed over to the parties and a letter was sent to the parties con-
          cerned and award bore no signature of the arbitrator. The parties had
          acted upon the award. It is true that under the law the mandatory rule
          is that the award should be signed by the arbitrator. But law must G
          subserve justice and endeavour to serve the purpose of law. The Court
          can in such circumstances extend time for making the award and direct
.......   curing of the formal defect in the award. So much time and effort
          should not be allowed to go waste.

               In the situation of this nature the proper order in the interest of H
    72                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [1988] 1 S.C.R.

A justice would be to remit the award under Section 16 of the Arbitration
  Act, 1940 for enabling the arbitrator named therein for signing the
  award and for that purpose if it is necessary under Section 28 of the
  Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court has the power to extend the time to
  the arbitrator for making the award final. We did so. We extend the
  time by four months from today and direct the award be remitted to
B the arbitrator for signature.

         The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    N.P.V.
                                                     Appeal disposed of.