APHC010180392025 !N THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl THURSDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMB^^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT \ HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TlLHARl THE AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM rniviiMFRr.iAl arbitration APPEAL NO: 1 OF 2025 international Between: Ltd. Having its Office at No. 37-52-2, P. R. China M/S Orind Special Refractories Xi Shi District, Yingkou City, Liaoning Province An Fu Li, 15003. Rep by Mr Sundar V Setty, General Manager 1 Appellant/Petitioner AND Steel Plant, Purchase M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, Visakhapatnam Department, Administrative Building (3rd Floor), V sakhapatnam ...Respondent/Respondent 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Application under Section praying that the High Court may. be pleased to allow the present appeal and ICOMAOA No. 4 of aside the impugned judgment dated 27.08.2024 in 15.12.2024) passed by the Arbitration Original Application No. 4 of 2018 set ..d. Single Judge in 2018 (uploaded on International Commercial Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner ; Counsel for the Respondent Sri S.Ram Babu ■ S.Vivek Chandrasekhar ng JUDGMENT ; The Court made the followi HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * ^ international commercial ARRITRATTOm No. 1 of 2n?S APPEAL Between; M/s. Grind Special Refractories Ltd. Having its Office at No.37-52-2, An Fu Li, Xi Shi District, Yingkou City, Liaoning Province, P.R.China 115003, Rep.by Mr.Sundar V. Setley, General Manager AND M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. ' Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Purchase Department, Administrative Building Floor), Visakhapatnam APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAI • 11.09.2025 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM V Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? 1. Yes/No 2. Whether the v/^es/No v^es/No i i RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of 2025 2 * THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM + INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 1 of 2025 % 11.09.2025 Between: M/s. Grind Special Refractories Ltd. Having its Office at No.37-52-2, An Fu Li, Xi Shi District, Yingkou City, Liaoning Province, P.R.China 115003, Rep.by Mr.Sundar V. Setley, General Manager .APPELLANT .AND M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Purchase Department, Administrative Building (3'*^ Floor), Visakhapatnam RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri S. Ram Babu : Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Respondent < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: 1. 2007(1) ALT 515 2. (2021) 7 see 657 3. 2005 see OnLine Del 237 4. 2025 see OnLine Del 1133 5. 2023 sec OnLine Del 2477 RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of 2025 3 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI & the HON'BL SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 1 of 2025 JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This International Commercial Arbitration Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &. Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act 19960 has been filed by M/s.Orind Special Refractories Limited, challenging the judgment dated 27.08.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Ms Justice B. S. Bhanumathi) in International Commercial Arbitration Original Application No.4 of 2018 (in short 'ICOMAOA. No.4 of 2018') under Section 34 of the Act 1996. 3. By the said judgment dated 27.08.2024, the learned single Judge dismissed the application ICOMAOA.No.4 of 2018 and upheld the majority ■ award in ICA Case No.2034 of 2016, dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, which consisted of Three Arbitrators, the Presiding Arbitrator, namely, Sri T. V. B. Haranath (in short 'Presiding Arbitrator') and two Co-Arbitrators, namely. Justice S. S. Parkar (in short 'Co-Arbitrator-1') and Justice NRL Nageswararao (in short 'Co-Arbitrator-2') respectively. 4. The majority Award was by the Presiding Arbitrator & Co-Arbitrator-2. Separate Award/dissenting opinion was passed by the Co-Arbitrator-1. RNT, J & MRK, j ICOMAA No. I of 2025 4 I. Facts: 5. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that the appellant is a Company incorporated in the Republic of China and engaged manufacturing refractories. The respondent - Limited, Visakhapatnam i* in the business of M/s. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam IS a company incorporated in India and engaged in the As per the agreement, the appellant comprising both imported business of manufacturing steel products. had to supply to the respondent 260 sets of ladles and indigenous material per the delivery schedule. When the differences arose due to alleged incorrect interpretation of the terms, as specifically regarding the delivery schedule, the respondent deducted (USD 159,638.50 and Rs.15,72,960.52) towards liquidated damages from to the out of the amount payable yed delivery. appellant on the allegation of the dela^ respondent deducted liquidated damages i hereafter, the on account of the ladles out of the amount payable to the appellant, by applying rate of exchange the date of the release of the prevailing on payment as opposed to date of reverse e-auction as agreed. Thus, excess amount of Rs.12,75,651.13/- towards exchange rate and Rs.d,18,00,355.13/- towards liquidated damages by under performance was deducted. way of penalty for Despite the efforts of the appellant, the appellant. The appellant respondent to settle the dispute The Arbitral Tribunal, as aforesaid. respondent did not release the amount payable to the issued a notice dated 10.09.2015 to the amicably and invoked the arbitration clause, was constituted. 6. The claims of the appellant were made as under: RNT. J & MRK, J ICOMAA No. I or2025 5 1) Recovery of sum of USD 1,59,638.50 and for a sum of Rs.15,72,960.52/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seventy two thousand nine hundred and sixty and fifty two paise only) on behalf of the appellant and its consortium partner on account of the wrongful and arbitrary deductions for the alleged delay, along with interest at the rate of 20% deduction till payment; per annum from the date of 2) For recovery of a sum of Rs.l2,75,651.13/- (Rupees twelve lakhs seventy five thousand six hundred and fifty one and thirteen paise only) with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the respondent wrongly deducted on account of fluctuation of exchange rate by the respondent. and i<.s.a-,io,uu,j2)D.Di/- r^Kupees Ui iuur crures eiyriLet;;! three hundred and fifty five and fifty one paise only) wrongly deducted by the respondent on account of penalty with interest at the rate of 20% annum;" 7. The respondent filed counter denying the claim of the appellant, to which the appellant filed rejoinder. 8. The following points were framed in the majority award: Whether imposition and deduction of liquidated damages by respondent is not legal, valid and enforceable as being contrary to contract? Whether the parties are entitled to the variation of the foreign exchange rate with regard to the materials supplied? luiNi lb per i) the ii) RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of 2025 6 iii) Whether the deduction of Rs.4,18,00,355.51 towards penalty for under performance of the refractories by the respondent is not correct and the claimant is not liable for the same? iv) What are the amounts, if any, the claimant is entitled to? v) Whether the claimant is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate? Vi) What relief? 9. On behalf of the appellant/claimant, Mr.Vikram (CW-1) was examined and Exs.Cl to C38 were marked on behalf of the applicant/claiman t. 10. The respondent did not lead oral evidence, but marked Exs.Rl to R13. 11. The Arbitral Tribunal by a majority (by Presiding Arbitrator, and by Co-Arbitrator-2) passed an award dated 02.06.20171 rejectii.y i-U ic major portion of the claims and awarded damages to a tune of USD 21,837 payable to the appellant and Rs.2,12,268/- payable to the appellant's consortium partner for the liquidated damages deducted for the first lot of supply. Point No.6 in the Award is reproduced as under; “Point No.6”- 38. In the result an award is passed for payment of 21,837 USD payable at present rate of exchange and Rs.2,12,268/- with interest at 12% from date of award. The other claims are rejected. Each party to bear their expense. PER Justice SS Parkar; Separate award is passed granting the claims 1&2 and rejecting claim no.3. Separate award enclosed. Per Justice NRL Nageswara Rao; Award is passed accepting the reasons and conclusions of the presiding arbitrator. Av/ard enclosed. As per the majority conclusions and award the following award is passed. RNT, J & iMRK, J ICOMAA No. I of 2025 7 1) The claimant will be entitled for rate of exchange and Rs.2,12,268/- amounts under claim No. 1. 2) The claims no.2&3 are rejected. 3) Each party do bear their payment of 21,837 USD payable at present payable with interest at 12% on both own costs. Written and pronounced by the Presiding Arbitrator on this the 2'^^ Dav of June 2017 at Visakhapatnam.” 12. The Co-Arbitrator-1 passed a separate award (minority award/opinion) directing the respondent to pay the appeliant a sum of USD 1,59,638.50 (US dollar one lac fifty nine thousand six hundred and thirty eight and point fifty only) and a sum of Rs. 15,72,960.52/- (Rupees fifteen iacs seventy two thousand nine hundred and sixty and fifty two paise only) on behalf of the consortium partner of the appellant with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of respective deductions till the of Rs.12,75,651.13/- (Rupees twelve lacs and fifty one and thirteen payment and a further sum seventy five thousand six hundred paise only) to the applicant/consortium partner deducted on account of the fluctuation in exchange rate along with interest thereon at the rate of 20% p.a. from the date on which payment be made tiil payment. Para-10 of the minority award/opinion is reproduced as under: was liable to 10. In the result the following Award is passed: The Respondent is directed to pay to the Claimant 1,59,638.50 (US Dollar One Lac Fifty Nine Thousand Six and thirty eight and point fifty only) and a sum of Rs. 15,72,960.52 (Rupees Fifteen Lacs Seventy Two Thousand Nine Sixty and fifty two paise only) on behalf of the consortium A. a sum of USD hundred Hundred and partner of ■'•'V RNT, J&MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of 2025 the Claimant with interest thereon @ 12°' respective deductions till the payment. The Respondent is directed to pay a further sum of Rs.12,75,651.13 (Rupees Twelve Lacs Seventy Five Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty One and Thirteen Paise only) to the Claimant / Consortium partner deducted on account of the fluctuation in exchange rate along with interest thereon at the rate of 20% p.a. from the date on which payment was liable to be made till payment. The Respondent is directed also to pay to the Claimant/consortium partner the amount of institution fee paid by the Claimant in respect of the claims which are allowed. Place: Mumbai Date: 3L‘ May, 2017 p.a. from the date of 70 B. C. Justice S.S.Parkar (Retd.) Co-Arbitrator” II. ICOMAOA.No.4 OF 2018: 13. The appellant/claimant being aggrieved by the award, dated 02.06.2017 filed an Application under Section 34 of the Act 1996 (ICOMAOA.No.4 of 2018) to set aside the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 02.06.2017 passed in ICA Case No.2034 of 2016. 14. The learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the ICOMAOA.No.4 of 2018 for the reasons recorded, holding that the Award did not require interference and was not liable to be set aside, vide Judgment & Order dated 27.08.2024. 15. Challenging the Judgment/Order dated 27.08.2024, appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Act 1996 by the claimant appellant. RNT, .1 & MRK, .1 ICOMAA No. I of 2025 9 HI- Argument of the learned counsels (i) for the Appellant: 16. Sri S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Award under challenge was not signed by all the arbitrators and the reasons for the omission of the signature in the Award of the Co-Arbitrator not signing were also not recorded. He submitted that the same was in violation of Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996 and therefore, the Award was not an Award in the eyes of law which required to be set aside in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act 1996, on that ground alone. 17. Sri S. Ram Babu, learned counsel for the the purported majority award , Presiding Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator-2. appellant, submitted that was claimed to have been delivered by the The award of the Presiding Arbitrator was signed only by the Presiding Arbitrator, endorsement of the award Arbitrator-2 did not meet the He submitted that the purported proposed by the Presiding Arbitrator, by Co requirements of Section 31 (1) and (2) of the Act 1996. He submitted that in the event of the majority of the Arbitrators signing the Award, the Award must mandatorily state the reasons for the inability of the Co-Arbitrator, whose signature was omitted. He submitted that the same is a statutory requirement, placing reliance in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Transmission Corporation of (A-P-Transco), Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh Ltd. V. Gaiada Power and Telecommunication Hon'ble Apex Court in Dakshin \^ryana Bijii Vitran Nigam Limited v. M/s. Navigant Technologies Ltd., Hyderabad^ and the judgment of the 2007 (1) ALT 5 15 RNTJ&MRX, J ICOMAA No. I of 2025 10 Private Limitecf, and of the Delhi High Court in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. v. Siemens Public Communication Network Ltd.^ and M/s. ISC Projects Private Limited v. Steel Authority ofIndia Limited*. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgments cited before the learned single Judge, were not noticed by the learned single Judge. He submitted that, even if the ground of violation of Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996 was not taken in the pleading in ICOMAOA No.4 of 2018, the learned single Judge ought to have adjudicated upon the point, based on Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996, as it was a pure question of law which could be taken at any stage, when that non-compliance made the award itself, void. 19. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge erroneously nd without any basis that on the rnajorib/ award the signature of co-arbitrator was not reflected as many times copying depends on the quality of .-..j presu ink. 20. No other ground to challenge the judgment/order of the learned single Judge was raised before us during arguments. fin. For the Respondent: 21. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Presiding Arbitrator signed his award. The Co-Arbitrator-2 agreed with the said award vide his separate award and signed that award. The Co-Arbitrator-1 not being in agreement passed a separate award. He signed his separate ^ (2021) 7 see 657 ^ 2005 see OnLine Del 237 2025 see OnLine Del 1133 RNT, J & MRK. J ICOMAA No. I or2025 11 award/opinion. All the three were compiled by the Presiding Arbitrator and were forwarded to the Registrar of the Indian Council of Arbitration through e-mail dated 02.06.2017 and were also forwarded inter alia to the respective parties and their counsels. He submitted that the said procedure • IS in consonance with Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996, as also the Rules of International Commercial Arbitration. He submitted that there is no specific procedure prescribed with respect to signing the award, by all the Arbitrators of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitrator/Co-Arbitrator, in agreement with the award of other Arbitrator/Co-Arbitrator can by a separate award under his signature concur with the award of such other Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance in S i i i S a i B kJUb 22. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge, in considering the petition under Section 34 of the Act 1996, considered the argument raised herein with respect to Section 31 (1) & (2) of the submission of the appellant that it was not so considered merely because the appellant did not take that plea in the petition under Section 34 He submitted that there is no illegality in the order impugned, ly. Point for determinatinn- 23. The point for determination which arises in view of the submissions advanced is as follows: as Act 1996. The is not correct. 2023 see OnLine Del 2477 RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No. I of 2025 12 Whether the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal deserved to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act 1996 by the learned single Judge on the submissions advanced before us that the Award was not signed by all the Arbitrators and for the omission of the signature for which no reason was assigned? To put it differently, the question is whether the Award deserved to be set aside for the alleged violation of Section 31(1) and (2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996? And whether the appeal deserves to be allowed? y. Analysis: 24. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. £A}: 25. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the premise that the arbitral award was not signed by ail the arbitrators and for the omitted signatures of the co-arbitrators , i.e, other than the Presiding Arbitrator, the reasons were not assigned. The same was mandatory requirement and in the absence of compliance with Section 31 (1) and (2) of the Act 1996, there was no award in the eyes of law, which required to be set aside. 26. Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 reads as under: “31. Form and contents of arbitral award.—(1) An arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), in arbitral proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of all the members of the arbitral tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signature is stated. \ 13 which it is based, award shall state the reasons upon (3) The arbitral unless— reasons are to be given, or (a) the parties have agreed that no (b) the award is an arbitral award on agreed terms under section 30. (4) The arbitral award shall state its date and the place of arbitration as award shall be deemed to have accordance with section 20 and the determined in been made at that place. (5) After the arbitral award is shall be delivered to each made, a signed copy party. ine the arbitral proceedings, which it may make a (6) The arbitral tribunal may at any time during make an interim arbitral award on any matter with respect to final arbitral award. ies, where and in so far as an include in the Unless otherwise agreed by the parties (7) (a) , the arbitral tribunal may arbitral award is for the payment of money tor which the award ts made interest, at such rate as .t , for the whole or any part it deems reasonable, on the of the period between the sum whole or any part of the money which the award is made, the award and the date on arbitral award shall, unless which the cause of action arose directed to be paid by- date on an (b) A .sum otherwise directs, carry interest at of interest prevalent on the date higher than the current the date of the rate of two per cent, of award, from the date of award to rate payment. ion “current rate of interest” shall have the same of the Interest Act, 1978 (14 The expression - it under clause (b) of section 2 Explanation, meaning as assigned to it of 1978). arbitration shall be fixed by the arbitral tribunal in (8) The costs of an accordance with section 31 A. Explanation.—For the purpose reasonable costs of clause (a), “costs” means relating to the fees and expenses of the arbitrators and witnesses. (i) legal fees and expenses, any administration fees of the institution supervising the arbitration. (ii) (ill) and RNT, J & mrk, j ICOMAA No.l of 2025 14 (iv) any other expenses incurred i proceedings and the arbitral in connection with the arbitral award. 27. We CH) of the Rules which were referred may also refer to Rule 2 (b), of International Commercial to US, as under: (n) & (o) and Rule 26 (1), Arbitration (in short 'ICA (2) and Rules'), 2. Definitions: (b) “Award means decision of the Tribunal includes an interim or final Award on a particular dispute and or an Award of an emergency arbitrator. (n) “Tribunal arbitrators where means a Tribunal I more than one is appointed, amend T” amendment thereof. composed ofa Sole Arbitrator or all the Act, 1996 and any 26. The Award: (1) The Tribunal. (2) For the award must be im writing and signed by the members of the purpose of sub-rule (1) above, i mure than one arbitrator the si in arbitral proceedings with majority of all the so long as the signatures of the members of the Tribunal shall be sufficient reason for any omitted signature is stated. (12) The arbitrators constituting the Tribunal shall sign the award and the making and expenses and charges and the award. The arbitrator/s Registrar shall g've notice in wriling to the parties of the Signing thereof and of the payable in amount of costs, respect of the arbitration shall be payable by the fee Council on receipt of the award and cost made by the parties. requisite deposit of the arbitration upon (14) When an Award has been made, Registrar shall be furnished a copy of the Award certified by the costs have fhe parties provided the been fully paid to the Council by the arbitration parties or by one of them.” RNT, J & MRK, .1 ICOMAA No. I or2025 15 28. Section 31 (1) of the Act 1996 clearly provides that the arbitral award shall be made in writing and shall be signed by the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal. Sub-Section (2) further provides that in arbitral proceedings consisting of more than one arbitrator, signatures of the majority of all the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be sufficient so long as the reason for any omitted signatures is stated. 29. In Dakshin Haryana BijH Vitran Nigam Limited (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 31 (1) of the Act 1996 mandatory terms and provides that an arbitral award shall be made in writing and signed by all the members by the Arbitral Tribunal, comprises of more than one arbitrator, the award is made when the arbitrators the is couched in If the Arbitral Tribunal iy ^xp.e^s Liieii aeciSion in wnung, ana is auLnenucacea oy their signatures. An award takes legal effect only after it is signed by the arbitrators, which gives it authentication. •<_ Ll I ii iUi There can be no finality of the award except after it is signed, since signing of the award gives legal effect and validity to it. The making and delivery of the award are different stages of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is authenticated by the person who makes it. The statute makes it obligatory for each of the members of the Tribunal to sign the award to make it a valid award. The usage of the term shall makes it a mandatory requirement. It is not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with. 30. Paragraph - 26 of Dakshin Haryana Bijii Vitran Nigam Limited (supra) reads as under; RNT, J&MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of2025 16 “26. Section 31(1) is couched in mandatory terms, and provides that an arbitral award shall be made in writing and signed by all the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. If the Arbitral Tribunal comprises of more than one arbitrator, the award is made when the arbitrators acting together finally express their decision in writing, and is authenticated by their signatures. [ Malhotra's Commentary on Law of Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, 4th Edn., Vol. 1, p. 794.] An award takes legal effect only after it is signed by the arbitrators, which gives it authentication. There can be no finality of the award, except after it is signed, since signing of the award gives legal effect and validity to it. The making and delivery of the award are different stages of an arbitration proceeding. An award is made when it is authenticated by the person who makes it. The statute makes it obligatory for each of the members of the Tribunal to sign the award, to make it a valid award. The usage of the term “shall” makes it a mandatory requirement. It is not merely a ministerial act, or an empty formality which can be dispensed with.” dl. In Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (A.P. Transcof Hyderabad (supra) a coordinate Bench of the common High Court held that the arbitral award shall have to be in writing and shall be signed by the arbitral Tribunal. It was obligatory on the part of each of the members of the Arbitral Tribunal to sign the award to make it as a valid one or in the absence of any of them necessarily it contemplates to state the specific reasons for such omission. 32. Para-26 of Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (A.P.Transco)f Hyderabad reads as under: “26. A reading of the aforesaid provisions, what all it could spell out clearly is a legal requirement under law, apart from a minimum but basically, is that the arbitral award shall have to be in writing and shall be signed by the arbitral Tribunal. Further the said decision has to be wiade by the majority ICOMAA No, I oi zuio 17 omitted signature. Admittedly, in this case, the arbitral Tribunal consists of three arbitrators namely the respondents 2 to 4. The 23-12-2002. In the award, as of two of the Presiding Officer unless a reason is given for any award is stated to have been pronounced on the Court below, it only contains the signatures produced before arbitrators, i.e., the respondents 3 and 4. The name namely Justice Bhate (Retd.) is neither shown or typed, nor it contains his follow that the award which was stated to have signature. Therefore, it can only been pronounced on presiding arbitrator Justice Bhate (Retd). Even on and the contents of the award, it is 23-12-2002 was only by two arbitrators but not by the a look at the proceeding sheet nowhere indicated much less shown explanation for the absence or omission of the specifically any reasons respondent No. 2 either in person or by signature. The Counsel on either side not able to explain in any manner properly. Nor there was such attempt any at either of stages to show any valid justification. In fact as contemplated under the aforesaid provision, the question of subsequent jurisdiction also does or are time rs and in case not arise since it contemplates the signatures of all the arbitrate absence, the reasons have to be found placed in where there is a majority or any the proceedings of the award for the absentee. In this case the arbitrary proceedings shown. The record is surprisingly silent ail the way. It is also noticed that in the entire award, each of the page contains only two signatures from the 1st page of the documents, the , admittedly, either in in the award, no such reasons have been existing or or till last page. Further, it has been shown during the course copy of the award which has been furnished to the parties which is signed on 23-12-2002 contained signatures: of only two arbitrators. Another glaring lapse most staring is that in fact on all the pages of the award at the bottom. which is the names of the three arbitrators are typed. However, the signatures are found only that of the two arbitrators but there is no signature of the presiding of the entire award. It is arbitrator i.e.. Justice Bhate (Retd.,) on any of the pages stated that the true copy of the original award which has been furnished to the the time of the filing of the present filed in Civil Court at parties was application challenging the award. The entire award runs which has been filed is shown as true copy of the original. Therefore, into 39 pages and the said copy RNT, J & mRK, j ICOMAA No. I of 2025 18 it is amply clear that per the requirement under those arbitrators and there i^ as provisions, there is no award duly signed by all the ■s no reason also for the ' during the absence of the si signature of omitted arbitrator. In fact, - contended that the course of arguments, it has been presence of the presiding arbitrator on the date when the award was very much doubted at the place have been or was stated to on 23-12-2002. Even ,h,s regard, .here is „„ or mater,al fortheomiag from any side as ,o ,he presence of - - or for ,he absence of ,he s.gna.ure of ,ha. arbitrator and apart from serious is contemplated under the aforesaid pronounced i.e. proper explanation the omitted arbitrator any reasons for such a omitted arbitrator. This lapse directly in the teeth of the is mandate as provision. 33. The law has thus been Dakshin Haryana Bijii Vitran the Act 1996 is couched in mandatory terms, after it is signed by the arbitrators, well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nigam Limited that Section 31 (1) of An award takes legal effect which gives it authentication. only There can be ■ since signing of the award it obligatory for each of sign the award to make it a valid act or empty formality which no finality of the award, except after it is signed, gives legal effect and validity to it. The statute makes the members of the Arbitral Tribunal to award. Signing is not a merely ministerial dispensed with. can be have been cited by the learned the same legal position. The other judgments which counsel for the appellant also reiterate 34. The question therefore signed by all the arbitrators '■e-, 2 arbitrators, as the Arbitral Tribunal .case of its signing by the majority for consideration is, firstly, if the award and if not whether by the was majority of the arbitrators consisted of three arbitrators, of arbitrators, whether it contains the arbitrator. If the arbitral and in , reasons for the omitted signature of the other award RNT, J& MRK, .1 ICOMAA No. I of 2025 19 was signed by all the arbitrators, the further question of recording reasons for the omission would certainly not arise. 35. In the present case, the arbitral award was made by the Presiding Arbitrator (Sri T.V.B. Haranath), the other Co-Arbitrator-2 Nageswara Rao (Retd.)) concurred with the award vide his (Justice NRL separate award, to that effect. The Presiding Arbitrator signed his award, the arbitrator concurring with that award, signed his award in which he agreed with the award of the Presiding Arbitrator. The third arbitrator Justice S.S. Parkar (Retd.) Co- Arbitrator-1, gave separate opinion. He also signed his separate award/opinion. The appellants have filed a Memo dated 16.04.2025 bringing on record Annexure-P16 & P17, which show that the Presiding Arbitrator (Sri T.V.B. -ML lO Li KL-yii:>LiQi Oi Lite; it iuidM e-iJui iLi . iu iCtLi iy De 01 /HrL/iLruLiofi, rocjordlioi i House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi, under the signatures of the Presiding Arbitrator, of the date 02.06.2017, all the three, enclosing in one booklet containing the award. From the said letter/Email/P16 it is evident that the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, award of Co-Arbitrtor-2, concurring with the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, were of the same date. We find from the Memo filed by the appellant's counsel Ex.P16, that the separate award/opinion of the Co-Arbitrator-1 (Just S.S. Parkar), had signed his opinion. The booklet containing the award thus, contained the signatures of the • Arbitrators on their respective award. We are, therefore, satisfied that there i no violation of Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996. respective IS The award would be operative and valid being an award by majority and the majority (Presiding RNT, J&MRK, J ICOM/VA No. I of 2025 20 Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator-2) signing the award and the Co-Arbitrator-1 signing his dissent/opinion. Consequently, there would be no requirement to record the reasons for the omission, in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 31, as there is no such omission. It is a case where the Presiding Arbitrator signed his award, Co-Arbitrator-2 signed his concurring award, agreeing with the reasons and conclusions of the award prepared by the Presiding Arbitrator and the Co-Arbitrtor-1 signed his separate award/opinion. All these three were compiled in one and sent by Presiding Arbitrator to the Registrar, Indian Council of Arbitration, on 02.06.2017. 36. At this stage, we refer to the arguments of the appellant's counsel ' that the award of the Arbitrator concurring with the Presiding Arbitrator does fiied by the not contain the date. We find from perusal fo the said awaru appellant that it mentions the award dated 02.06.2017 after the name of the parties and it finds enclosed in the e-mail of the Presiding Arbitrator and with his Award which are dated 02.06.2017. So, the award of the Co-Arbitrator-2 cannot be of a date other than 02.06.2017. He might not have put the date at the place of his signature but that would not affect the validity of the award. 37. In Medeor Hospital Limited (supra) upon which learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance, one of the contentions to challenge the , award in proceedings under Section 34 of the Act 1996 before the Delhi High Court was that "one of the co-Arbitrators simply consented to the award drafted by the other Arbitrator without assigning any reason". The further contention was that the award was made without awaiting the draft award of the Presiding RNT. J & MRK, .1 ICOMAA No. I of 2025 21 Arbitrator, whose signatures was absent thereon and omission was stated. no reason for such In this case, the two Co-Arbitrators had rendered the award on 17.08.2021 and the Presiding Arbitrator gave her decision on months. The Delhi High Court, not put her signature in the majority award nor had stated any reason for such omitted signature. But, the reason 04.10.2021 i.e., after a period of almost two held that the Presiding Arbitrator did was very clear and that was that, she had given separate opinion which duly signed. It was held that the award dated 17.08.2021 was was signed by the majority of its Members as the two co-Arbitrators signed the award , SO the same shall be construed as the award of the Arbitral Tribunal, Section 29 of the Act 1996 that any decision of the Arbitral Tribunal with referring to more hiidi i ui Id ai'Diiraior 5 ian uc iViaGe Dy Li ic majoriLy or its memDers. 38. From the aforesaid Judgment in Medeor Hospital Limited It IS evident that, (i) where one of the Arbitrators of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three arbitrators writes an award signed by him and the other co- arbitrator consents to such award by a separate award which separate award i also signed, the award would be by the majority of the arbitrators, that the detailed award passed by one arbitrator can be simply consented to by the other arbitrator, and (ii) that the arbitrator of IS It follows the Arbitral Tribunal, not agreeing with the majority award or differing with it, or passing his separate opinion, signed by him, would fulfill the requirement of Sections 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996 and in such a situation reason for omission of signature on the majority award would be ve,-7 clear and i.e., that, such arbitrator passed his RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of'2025 22 separate differing award/opinion and so, in the majority award his signatures were omitted. Any specific reasons need not be assigned in such a case. Such a majority award would be valid and binding and cannot be said to be no award for that reason. 39. In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (supra) cited by the appellant's counsel, the award was signed only by two Arbitrators and the reason for not affixing the signature of the third Arbitrator had not been stated. So, in the said case, the facts were different. There was violation of Section 31 (2) of the Act 1996. So, it was held that the document purported to be a majority award could not be termed as an award within the meaning of this . term under the Act. The said judgment is of no help to the appellant as in the d by fr.ajoricy of the nd that the majority award was sig present case, we r\Ci I Arbitrators in the manner aforesaid and the arbitrator in minority had given his opinion duly signed by him. 40. In M/s. ISC Projects Private Limited upon which also the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance, the Court found that the award was signed by only two of three Arbitrators without any explanation in the award for the omission of the signature of the third Arbitrator. So, in the said case also, the facts were different. There was violation of Section 31 (2) of the Act 1996. In the said case, the Court recorded undisputed facts of the case, (a) the signature of the Arbitrator-A did not appear on the award; (b) the impugned award therein did not disclose any reason for the fact that the signature of Arbitrator-A was missing; and (c) there was no separate dissenting RNT, .1 & MRK, J ICOMAA No.l of2025 23 award circulated by Arbitrator-A. So, in the said case, all the three Arbitrators had not signed the award and the reason for the omission of the signature of one of the Arbitrators was not assigned and there was also no separate dissenting opinion. In the present case, the majority had signed the award and there is dissenting opinion of the third Arbitrator, which is also duly signed by him. 41. We would now proceed to consider the next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not consider the argument of the claimant/appellant based on Section 31 (1) and (2) of the Act 1996 as also the judgment cited before the learned Single Judge. 42. We find from perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge that after observing that, not signing by all arbitrators and absence of reason in the award, was not a ground raised in the application, the learned single Judge also considered the argument that the award was liable to be set aside as in the submission it was not inconsonance with Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996. The learned single Judge referred to Section 31 of the Act 1996 and also the judgments on which reliance was placed before the learned single Judge in Dakshin Haryana BijU Vitran Nigam Limited (supra) and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (supra) and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (A.P.Transco), Hyderabad in its judgment. 43. The learned single Judge observed and held in para-17 that the Principal Arbitrator authored the majority award with reasoned award and signed on every page and dated 02.06.2017 at the end. The concurring Co- \ 'COMAA No, 24 I of2025 Arbitrator (Co-Arbitrator-2) passed a Cfyptic award that the was perused and that he award proposed by reasons and single Judge proceedings and tbe Presiding Arbitrator conclusions and for further observed agreed with the passing of award that it was as proposed. The learned si prepared with title of the arbitral cause title of the dissenting reasoned, but si single Judge also parties and sisigned by him, but other Co-Arbitrator undated. The minority (Co-Arbitrator-1) was 31.05.2017. award passed by the signature did not appear, but was dated Learned recorded the submission ot the learned the learned counsel for the single Judge that, the parties. respondent, who had majority award submitted before on 02.06.2017 the was sent appellant/applicant filed through email to The copy of the minority award, also. It was stated that all three we.rp sent through email. Howev Court. The learned Si or scanner ig •Ud: award0 vvas not before the sometimes Photostat OP ink used and therefore it was it was not signed or signed. Tbe Single Judge therefore obseo,ed that. may not copy writing depending recorded that it could not be concluded that majority award was found by the learned si Of the Act 1996 on that ground there single Judge in conformity with Section 31 (i) ^2) observed that 44. We and therefore, the etamed siSingle Judge was no need to set aside the award. reproduce para-17 of the ijudgment/order under challenge so lo make evident the as falsity of the which reads submission of the as under:- appellant's to the above effect. counsel raised 17. The PrincipaJ Arbitrate (Sri T.V.B. Haranath) authored --y page and dated ncurrtag Co-Arbitrator (Juspee NRL Nageswara majority award with the reasoned award 02.06.2017 at the end. The 25 Ic award tha. the award proposed by ihe Pres,drag Arbitrator and conclusions and for title of the arbitral Rao) passed a cryptic perused and that he agreed with the reasons passing of award as proposed. It is prepared ' „„e of tbe parties and signed by him, bu, undated. The -Arbitrator (Justice SS Parker) was with proceedings and cause minority dissenting award passed by the other Co is reasoned, but signature doesn’t appear, but is dated 31 .05.2017. The Learned stated that the majority award of the Counsel for the respondent 02 06.2017 through email to the parties „,toorrty award also. It rs stated all three were sen. Sometimes Photostat or ies. The applicant filed copy through email. The original scanner may not copy award is not before this Court, ink used. Whatever it may be, therefore it cannot be igned. If there is no signature, it would the Tribunal or raised definitely m the is aggrieved by the For all these writing depending on concluded that it was not signed or have been either returned or informed to Moreover, the applicant grounds of this application majority award which is in conformity reasons, there is no need to set with S.31 (1) & C^)- uround.’' aside the award on this the learned single 16 of the judgment of Act 1996 and the judgments 45. In paragraphs - 15.and Judge, Section 31 of the in Dakshin Haryana Telephone Nigam Ltd. Pradesh Ltd. BijU Vitran Nigam Limited (supra), Mahanagar of Andhra have been referred. In view thereof, as Transmission Corporation (supra) and (A.P.TranscoJyr Hyderabad (supra) reproduced above, the submission of the 31 of the Act 1996 and also para-17 of the judgment, as that his argument based on Section appellant's counsel the judgment cited, were no force. There is consideration of the above learned single Judge, has got not considered by the ground, argument and the cited the said consideration, the learned single Judge recorded judgments and on that tfe award did not deserve to be set aside. I J ICOMAA No. I of 2025 26 £Q: 46. We before counsel for the proceeding to consider appellant, advert next submission of the learned to an i 'mportant aspect that, in the proceedings for setting aside before the learned S.S.Parkar, Co-Arbitrator petition under Section the award under Section 34 of the Act 1996 filed dissenting award/opinion single Judge, copy of the of Justice -C was filed as EX.A3, said 34. The Photostat r Signatures Of that Arbitrator (Co-Arbitrator-l). 47. The arguments single Judge is that the not reflect the made in appeal to 'earned Single Judge was not reflected challenge the Order of the learned grossly erred in holding that the signature of the Co-Arbitrator on the 'majority award' as sometimes Photostat It was submitted basis by the learned or scanner may not copy writing depending completely presumptuous on ink used. that such was and without any Single Judge. 48. To the above effect. the appellant has taken specific ground in the fiemo of appeal on Ground No.F, as follows; ‘BECAUSE the Ld.Single Judge has signature of the Co-Arbitrato "■■■■Sometimes Photost used... grossly erred in holding that the ^ w- not reflected on the ■majority award mnj' not copy wrUing depending ompletely presumptuous and without any basis." as at or scanner The finding i on ink IS c 49. So, in Ground Mo.F it has been Judge observed Co-Arbitrator tried to submit that the «ith respect to the majority award, that the si was not reflected 'earned single Signature of the on the majority award. \ / IV^Wlvi • \ r\ 21 Order of the learned single Judge. 50. We have carefully perused the Para-17 of the lodgment has already been reproduced hereinabove. is evident with observed by the learned Single Judge, as 51. What was for the minority/dissenting the signatures or no signatures was respect to award/opinion that, "the minority dissenting Arbitrator (Justice S.S. Parkar) is is dated 31.05.2017". The filed copy of the minority award also. It is mail". The learned Single Judge award passed by the other Co reasoned, but signature does not appear, but learned single Judge observed that "the applicant stated all three were sent through e- observed that "the original award was not not copy writing before this Court. Sometimes Photostat or scanner may ink used. Whatever it may be, it could not be concluded that it depending on was nor signeo ui siynccu. that the learned Single Judge was With respect to the majority award learned Single Judge clearly observed 52. In our view, it is very clear referring to the minority award/opinion authored by the Presiding Arbitrator, the that it contained signatures on every page, and with respect to the concurring Single Judge observed that, he passed a cryptic Co-Arbitrator, the learned award that, the award proposed by and was signed by him. The copy filed the Presiding Arbitrator was perused etc., before the learned single Judge of the the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, observed by the learned single Judge, writing depending on the ink minority award/opinion, though the learned single award by Co-Arbitrator consenting to contained signature. So, what was scanner may not copy regarding Photostat or used, was with respect to the RNT, J & mrk, j ICOMAA No. I of 2025 28 Judge did not Such observations correct copy of the mi conclude, that the mi - minority award/opinion came to be passed because was signed or not. the appellant did not file the the signatures of the Co- minority award/opinion containing such Photostat copy of the not reflect the si Arbitrator-1. As to why filed, which did record, that the minority award/opinion signature of that Co-Arbitrator-1? We place was on same copy of the which did not reflect his minority award/opinion of the signatures was filed i Co-Arbitrator-1 in this appeal, along with dated 16.04.2025 the the appeal. Subsequently, by the Memo brought on record Ex.Pl6 Arbitrator dated 02.06.2017 enclosing one booklet appellant has Presiding Council of Arbitration, Presiding Arbitrator, the ' & Ex.P17, Pages 219-250, the E-mail of the to the Registrar of the Indian containing the award of the r.-i K. the;Co-Arbitrdtor-2^ agreeing with the rreasons and conclusions and for passing of the award Arbitrator-1, which mentioning the reason, to inadvertence it could correct Photostat copy of the thereon of Co-Arbitrator-1, yi- Conclusinnc- as proposed and also the reflects his si dissenting award/opinion of Co- - signatures on the dissenting as mentioned in the award/opinion, memo dated 16.04.2025, that, due not be ifled. It was for the appellant to have minority award / opinion reflecting tiled the the signature 53. To sum up, we are of the considered viview, for the consideration , made; (i) that as per Section 31 (1) & (?) of the consisting of number of Arbitrators, Act 1996, in the case of Arbitral the Award, if Tribunal not signed by RNT, J & MRK, J ICOMAA No.I ol'2025 29 all, will still be valid, if it is signed by majority of Arbitrators and for the Arbitrator not signing the award, for such omission, the reasons have been assigned, (ii) that if there is a single award, in the sense that only one Arbitrator has passed (authored) the award, and it contained his signatures, all or the majority of the other Arbitrators can sign thereon, the same award, or they can also by their separate award signed by them, consent to or concur with the same. But, in case such concurrence by either only by majority, and not by all, the reasons for omission(s) of signing by the arbitrator failing to sign, shall be recorded, to make it an award valid and binding. way, IS uioL uic aVvdiu siyfiea Dy majority or consentea uC(J Ur dyi i-ipw majority and there being a separate opinion signed by other Co- Arbitrator(s), would be in compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996, even if the reason for omission of the Co-Arbitrator, not signing the majority award, is not recorded as in such a case the opinion by itself would be the reason for omission to sign the majority award. (iv)In the present case, the Presiding Arbitrator passed his signed. The Co-Arbitrator-2 vide a separate award concurred with the award of the Presiding Arbitrator, separate award/opinion and also signed his award, awards were compiled by the Presiding Arbitrator and sent to the award duly The Co-Arbitrator-1 passed his All these three RNT. J & MRK, J ICOMAA No. I of 2025 30 Registrar of the Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi, as also to the respective parties and their counsels. Consequently, the majority award of the Presiding Arbitrator and Co-Arbitrator-2 is valid and binding and there is no violation of Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996. (v) The learned Single Judge considered the argument based on Section 31 (1) & (2) of the Act 1996, though any such plea/objection was not taken in the petition under Section 34 of the Act 1996, and also considered the judgments cited. The argument to the contrary raised before us, by the appellant's counsel is misconceived and contrary to record. The further argument on ground 'F' in the memo of appeal is also misconceived. (vi)The learned Single Judge has rightly recorded that the majority award ui I Li^e dforesaiG argument of was valid and did not cai! for iriterier: i-r Section 31 of the Act 1996. 54. The point for determination is answered as in para-53 (supra), and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. VII. Result: 55. For the reasons recorded in this judgment and discussion made, we dismiss the appeal and for the reasons recorded in paragraphs-under 'B' and 'C' (supra), we impose a costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the appellant, to be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi. Let the costs be deposited within a period of one Ji It-UIVIAA No. I 01 ZUli month from today, failing which, the Registrar Judicial shall take steps to recover the same, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if necessary any, shall stand closed in consequence. Sd/- E. KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR // ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice RAVI NATH TILHARI (for His Lordship’s kind perusal) and One fair copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (for His Lordship’s kind perusal) To, 1. The Registrar(Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 2. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi 3. M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, Purchase Department, Administrative Building (3rd Floo.r), Visakhapatnam 4. Nine(09) L.R copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi 6. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings at Amaravathi. 7. One CC to Sri S.Ram Babu Advocate [OPUC] 8. One. CCto Sri S.Vivek Chandrasekhar Advocate 9. The Section Officer, O.S Section [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. The Section Officer, Acounts Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 11. Two CD Copies Stu VNA HIGH COURT DATED:11/09/2025 JUDGMENT / ICOMAA NO. 1 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS