Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.27 seconds)Section 31 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Section 37 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 31A in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Transmission Corporation Of ... vs Galada Power And Telecomunication ... on 4 September, 2006
In paragraphs - 15 and 16 of the judgment of the learned single
Judge, Section 31 of the Act 1996 and the judgments in Dakshin Haryana
Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (supra), Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
(supra) and Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd.
(A.P.Transco), Hyderabad (supra) have been referred. In view thereof, as
also para-17 of the judgment, as reproduced above, the submission of the
appellant's counsel that his argument based on Section 31 of the Act 1996 and
the judgment cited, were not considered by the learned single Judge, has got
no force. There is consideration of the above ground, argument and the cited
judgments and on the said consideration, the learned single Judge recorded
that the award did not deserve to be set aside.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Siemens Public Communication Network ... on 25 February, 2005
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
present case, we find that the majority award was signed by majority of the
Arbitrators in the manner aforesaid and the arbitrator in minority had given his
opinion duly signed by him.
Medeor Hospital Limited Formerly ... vs Ernst And Young Llp on 1 May, 2023
38. From the aforesaid judgment in Medeor Hospital Limited (supra),
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 is
also signed, the award would be by the majority of the arbitrators. It follows
that the detailed award passed by one arbitrator can be simply consented to by
the other arbitrator, and (ii) that the arbitrator of 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 very clear and i.e., that, such arbitrator passed his
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
RNT, J & MRK, J
22 ICOMAA No.1 of 2025
a majority award would be valid and binding and cannot be said to be no award
for that reason.