Bombay HC Embraces Digital Age – Signed Award on WhatsApp Starts
the Judgment dated of the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No.642 of 2023 (OS) with Interim Application (L) No.18560 of 2024 of Union of India Vs. Inspirisys Solutions Ltd
This is a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Arbitration Act, 1996”) to set aside the award dated 22nd February, 2023 passed by the arbitral tribunal in an arbitral proceeding in connection with the post warranty maintenance of 175 numbers of Smart Card based ATVM Kiosk, reader and Management Terminals.
By the said award, a three-member arbitral tribunal has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,45,97,550/- to the respondent-claimant, within 60 days thereof, and in the event of default, to pay simple interest at the rate of 7% p.a. on the award amount from the date of the award till payment.
In the afGdavit-in-reply to the interim application, being IA(L)/18580/2024, the respondent-claimant has raised the ground that petition does not deserve to be entertained as it has been Gled beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 plus the extendable period of 30 days under the proviso thereto.
It is, inter alia, asserted that the impugned award declared that it shall be published immediately on receipt of the arbitration fees and expenses from the parties. And since the arbitration fees were paid on 12th May, 2023 and 17th May, 2023 and, thereafter, the signed copy of the award was dispatched and received in the ofGce of the DGM, Central Railway, on 11th July, 2023, the period of limitation commenced from the date of receipt of the duly published original award. Thus, the petition Gled on 5th September, 2023 was within the period of limitation.
Although the petitioner has acknowledged the receipt of the copy of the arbitration award from the presiding Arbitrator on WhatsApp group on 23rd March, 2023 and colour photostat copy through courier service on 24th March, 2023, no steps were taken to Gle the petition within the prescribed period. On 27th June, 2023, a communication was addressed to the arbitral tribunal seeking a copy of the arbitral award to artificially create a basis for Gling the arbitration petition. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that, since the original award was received on 11th July, 2023 the Gling of the petition on 5th September, 2023 was within the prescribed period of limitation was a subterfuge.
On a plain reading, sub-section (5) of Section 31 casts an obligation on the arbitral tribunal to deliver a signed copy of the arbitral award to each party. The mode in which the “signed copy” is to be delivered is not indicated by the text of sub section (5) of Section 31. Any mode of delivery which in itself ensures the identity and authenticity of the arbitral award that is delivered to each of the parties would be sufGcient. The term “signed copy”, in the considered view of this Court, does not necessarily imply that only the original award made in duplicate or triplicate, as the case may warrant, shall be delivered. Clause 56 of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, indicates what “to sign” signiGes, as under: “3(56) “sign”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, shall, with reference to a person who is unable to write his name, include “mark”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions.”
- A copy which bears the signature(s) of the arbitrator(s), and not necessarily, in original, may amount to a signed copy. Any other interpretation would put unjustiGed restrictions in the matter of delivery of the copy of the award to a party. The Courts cannot be oblivious to the march of technology. It cannot be arrested. If an interpretation is adopted that, only the original award bearing the signature of the arbitrator(s) in ink would amount to a signed copy of the arbitral award, the very purpose and object of the Arbitration Act, 1996 of ensuring an expeditious resolution of the dispute by a forum chosen by the party by putting in place strict timelines for the challenge to the arbitral award, would be defeated.
