Calcutta HC: Unsigned Arbitral Award Cannot Be Enforced, Execution Petition Premature [Read Judgment]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that a certificate issued by an MSME Directorate officer, attesting that an arbitral award was signed by the arbitrators, cannot substitute for a copy of the award that itself bears the signatures. 

Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed an execution petition filed by CE Testing Company Private Limited against Madhucon Projects Limited, holding that the copy of the arbitral award dated 10th November 2020 supplied to the award-debtor did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since it merely carried a typed notation "Sd/-" against the names of the Council members rather than a reproduction of their actual signatures.

The dispute arose from five contracts awarded to CE Testing Company between 2011 and 2012 for railway and highway projects, under which an outstanding principal of Rs. 1,11,39,966 allegedly remained unpaid. After conciliation before the West Bengal Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council failed, the Council passed an award in the company's favour on 10th November 2020. 

The judgment debtor resisted enforcement, arguing that the copy served on it was admittedly unsigned and that mere departmental certification could not cure the absence of the arbitrators' signatures, rendering the execution petition premature.

"A certificate by a third party, however authorised, that an unseen original was signed cannot be equated with a copy that itself bears the signatures, since the very object of Section 31(5)... is to permit each party to satisfy itself, from the document delivered to it, that the award emanates validly from the Tribunal."

The Court distinguished the award holder's reliance on National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd., noting that in that case the photocopied signatures of the arbitrators were themselves physically visible on the certified copy, unlike the present award, whose last page recorded only names against a typed "Sd/-" notation. Relying on Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Bench held that delivery of a signed award under Section 31(5) "is not a mere formality but a matter of substance," since it alone triggers termination of proceedings under Section 32 and starts the limitation clock for a Section 34 challenge.

"Since that time has, on the facts before this Court, not even commenced to run, the award dated 10.11.2020 is not, at this stage, in a form capable of being enforced as a decree of the Court, and the instant execution petition is premature."

Having found the petition premature on this ground, the Court declined to rule on the judgment debtor's separate challenge to territorial jurisdiction, keeping that question open for consideration once the award attains the character of a validly delivered and enforceable award. The petition was dismissed with liberty to both parties to approach the WBMSE Facilitation Council for a duly signed copy of the award, or a certified copy bearing reproduction of the arbitrators' signatures, in compliance with Section 31(5), after which the parties would be free to pursue their remedies in accordance with law.

Appearances: Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Ms. Arijita Ghosh, Mr. Siddhartha Chamria and Mr. Adhip Narayan Banerjee appeared for the award holder; Mr. Anubhav Sinha and Mr. Shirsho Banerjee appeared for the award-debtor.

Case Title: CE Testing Company Private Limited vs. Madhucon Projects Limited and Anr. (Case No: EC-COM 72 of 2025 with IA No. GA-COM 1 of 2025)

[Read Judgment]