Delivery Of Certified Copy Of Award After Signing & Authentication Constitutes Valid Service U/S 31(5) Of Arbitration Act: Calcutta HC

The present application has been filed under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) seeking a declaration that the award dated 10.11.2020 is non-est and unenforceable. It is further prayed that the execution proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the application.

The Award Debtor submitted that the award passed by the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) Council dated November 10, 2020, was not executable. As the time for filing an application for setting aside the award had not expired, the execution case was not maintainable. The award was not served upon the award debtor. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), had not been complied with. The delivery of a signed copy of the award upon the award debtor, was the mandate of law.

Per contra, the Award Holder submitted that the date of the award was mentioned on the first page of the award and the passing of the award was mentioned in the last page. The award which was on record, was a certified copy of the original signed copy of the award dated November 10, 2020. The award debtor did not contend that the officer who certified the original signed copy of the award was not authorized to do so.

It was further submitted that the facts in the present case would demonstrate that at least a certified copy of the signed award was delivered at the last known address of the award debtor, being its principal place of business. The postal department had confirmed delivery of the consignment.

The court observed that the legislative mandate is that, a party can execute an award upon expiry of the period prescribed by law to challenge to an award. Thus, until and unless the time prescribed for challenging an award under Section 34(3) of the said Act expires, an execution case cannot be filed.

It further observed that the MSME Council had complied with the requirements of section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act as it had dispatched the copy of the award to the correct address by post or courier. Whether actual delivery was effected depended on postal authorities. Once dispatched, a presumption of service arose under section 114(f) of the Indian Evidence Act and section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

It further observed that postal receipts of the arbitral records show that the signed arbitral award was dispatched to the parties followed by dispatching of the certified copies. Since, the respondent failed to show non-delivery of the award and whether the address was incorrect, the legal presumption is that a valid delivery was effected in due course. Moreover, the award holder admittedly received a certified copy of the signed award.

It held that in M/s. R. Piyarelall, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that service of photocopies of the original award along with photocopied signatures of the arbitrators, duly certified by the Indian Council of Arbitrator was proper compliance of Section 31(5) of the said Act.

It further observed that in Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board ,the Delhi High Court held that service of a copy of the award duly authenticated by the Arbitrator qualifies as a signed copy within the meaning of section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act since the purpose is to ensure receipt and the actionability of the award. A photo copy of the award bearing authenticated signatures was therefore a valid service. Earlier, a signed copy of the award was dispatched though unacknowledged but later a certified copy was sent with postal confirmation of delivery.

It further noted that the Calcutta High Court also held that the award signed by all or majority members of the tribunal which is duly certified by a senior officer amounts to substantial compliance with section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act. Since, the certified copy was properly addressed, stamped and delivered by speed post, the delivery of the award on the award debtor stood duly effected.

Accordingly, the present application was dismissed.

Case Title: J.D. ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS PURBACHAL UDYOG

Case Number: IA No: GA/1/2022 EC/87/2021

Judgment Date: 25/08/2025

For the petitioner : Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharyya , Adv. Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty , Adv. Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Sriparna Mitra, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Manna, Adv.

For the respondent: Mr. Pratip Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Emon Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sah, Adv. Mr. Purnanka Biswas, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download The Order