9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of interim award dated 23-2-1998. 2. Competence and jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. 3. Execution of the interim award. 4. Objections raised by the respondent-Board. 5. Application of sections 16, 31, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 6. Consideration of objections during execution proceedings. 7. Requirement of signatures of all Arbitrators on the award. Validity of Interim Award: The civil revision application challenges the rejection of the application for execution of an interim award dated 23-2-1998. The respondent-Board contends that the award is a nullity in law due to unauthorized arbitration agreement and lack of signatures of all Arbitrators. However, the court notes that an award's validity is not solely based on format requirements and un-stamped awards are curable irregularities. The objections raised by the respondent-Board regarding the award's validity are deemed insufficient. Competence and Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal: The respondent-Board questions the competence of the Arbitral Tribunal to issue the interim award. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was challenged by the respondent-Board, but the court emphasizes that such objections should be decided by the Tribunal itself. The court states that objections to the award cannot be raised during execution if not previously addressed through the proper channels as per the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Execution of Interim Award: The revision petitioner asserts that the interim award became executable as a decree of the civil court after the respondent-Board failed to file an application to set aside the award within the prescribed time frame under section 34 of the Act. The respondent-Board resisted execution based on lack of power and competence of the Arbitral Tribunal, which the court deems impermissible without following the Act's procedures. Objections Raised by Respondent-Board: The respondent-Board argues that the award is not properly stamped, lacks all Arbitrators' signatures, and is merely minutes of the proceedings. However, the court finds these objections insufficient to invalidate the award, emphasizing that an award's clarity and decision on the dispute are crucial, not adherence to specific formats. Application of Relevant Act Sections: The revision petitioner cites sections 16, 31, 34, and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to support the execution of the interim award. The Act outlines the process for challenging awards and executing them as decrees, emphasizing the importance of following the Act's provisions and timelines. Consideration of Objections During Execution Proceedings: The court clarifies that objections to an award's validity must appear on the record and cannot be raised during execution proceedings if not previously addressed. The respondent-Board's objections regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should have been dealt with through the Act's procedures, and not during execution. Requirement of Signatures of All Arbitrators: The court notes discrepancies in the signatures on the award submitted by both parties. It directs the District Judge to obtain the original award from the Arbitrators to verify the signatures and proceed with the execution accordingly. The importance of ensuring all Arbitrators sign the award is highlighted for clarity and validity. This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised concerning the validity of the interim award, the competence and jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, the execution process, objections by the respondent-Board, application of relevant Act sections, consideration of objections during execution proceedings, and the requirement of all Arbitrators' signatures on the award.
|
