The Bombay High Court has clarified that a signed certified copy of an arbitral award is sufficient to establish its existence under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court set aside orders denying temporary injunction in a property dispute, remanding the matter for reconsideration while directing the Trial Court to examine the validity of a disputed 2005 arbitral award based on its certified copy.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute originates from a family partition involving Late Jinabhai Raviji Patel, who died in 1958, leaving behind five sons and three daughters. Two of his sons, Pravinchandra and Anilkumar Patel, continued a joint business after the family's separation. In 1996, disputes arose between them, leading to arbitration. Three arbitral awards were passed:
- Award dated 07.07.1996
- Award dated 03.11.1996
- Disputed Award dated 01.03.2005
The third award, passed by Arbitrator Bhagwandas Jinabhai Patel, modified the distribution of properties allotted to Anilkumar Patel's branch. The existence of this award is contested by the respondents.
Key Facts
- 1996: First and second awards passed, resolving disputes between Pravinchandra and Anilkumar Patel.
- 28.02.2005: Parties allegedly consented to arbitration by Bhagwandas Jinabhai Patel.
- 01.03.2005: Disputed award passed, modifying property distribution.
- 2015: Special Darkhast No. 1351/2015 filed for execution of the 1996 awards.
- 2017: Arbitration Regular Darkhast No. 89/2017 filed for execution of the 2005 award.
- 16.09.2023: Executing Court ordered attachment of property and transmission of precept to the Collector.
- 17.04.2024: Bombay High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 11825/2023, directing the decree holder to place the 2005 award on record for complete execution.
- 08.09.2024: Respondents executed gift deed No. 3239/2024 and sale deed No. 3233/2024, transferring suit properties to third parties.
- 2024: Appellants filed Special Civil Suit Nos. 168/2024 and 167/2024, seeking declaration against the deeds and possession of the properties.
- 25.08.2025 & 10.09.2025: Trial Court denied temporary injunction (Exhibit-6) restraining alienation of properties.
Procedural History
- 2015: Special Darkhast No. 1351/2015 filed for execution of 1996 awards.
- 2017: Arbitration Regular Darkhast No. 89/2017 filed for execution of 2005 award.
- 16.09.2023: Executing Court ordered attachment of property.
- 17.04.2024: Bombay High Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 11825/2023, directing inclusion of the 2005 award.
- 2024: Appellants filed Special Civil Suits Nos. 167/2024 and 168/2024.
- 25.08.2025 & 10.09.2025: Trial Court denied temporary injunction.
- 2025: Present Appeals from Order Nos. 70 and 74 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court.
The Parties' Positions
Appellants (Original Plaintiffs):
- Contend that the 2005 award is valid and was received as a signed certified copy.
- Argue that respondents executed gift and sale deeds during pendency of Supreme Court proceedings, attempting to frustrate the award's execution.
- Rely on judgments of the Bombay High Court to argue that a signed certified copy suffices under Section 31(5).
Respondents (Original Defendants):
- Dispute the existence of the 2005 award, arguing that no signed original or certified copy was ever delivered.
- Contend that the 1996 awards attained finality and mutation entries were lawfully recorded.
- Argue that the appellants failed to establish title to the suit properties.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought:
- Declaration that the gift deed and sale deed dated 08.09.2024 are invalid.
- Possession of the suit properties.
- Temporary injunction restraining respondents from alienating or creating third-party rights in the properties.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a signed certified copy of an arbitral award, as opposed to an original signed award, satisfies the requirements of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and whether the Trial Court erred in denying temporary injunction without considering the disputed award.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
- Relied on Rahul Omprakash Gandhi v. The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Operative Bank Limited and Hi Style India Pvt. Limited v. Rakesh Corporation to argue that Section 31(5) requires delivery of a signed copy, not necessarily an original signed award.
- Contended that the purpose of Section 31(5) is to inform parties of the award's contents, which can be achieved through a signed certified copy.
- Argued that the Trial Court failed to consider the signed certified copy of the 2005 award, which was part of the execution proceedings.
For the Respondents
- Contended that the 2005 award is forged, as no signed original or certified copy was ever delivered to them.
- Relied on Sections 76 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act to argue that a signed copy must be delivered to each party, which did not occur.
- Argued that the appellants failed to establish the existence of the 2005 award, and thus, their title to the suit properties.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the validity of the 2005 award under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which mandates that a signed copy of the arbitral award be delivered to each party. The respondents disputed the award's existence, arguing that no signed copy was ever delivered.
The Court observed that the appellants relied on a signed certified copy of the award, which was part of the record in Arbitration Regular Darkhast No. 89/2017. The Court noted:
"The purpose of the provision, of imparting knowledge to 'party', as to contents of award, is achieved whether a signed copy is delivered or certified copy of signed award is obtained by 'party'."
The Court relied on its earlier judgments to hold that a signed certified copy suffices under Section 31(5), as the legislature intended to authenticate the copy rather than require original signatures on each copy. The Court further noted that the Trial Court erred in observing that the 2005 award was not placed on record, despite its availability in the execution proceedings.
The Court also considered the appellants' contention that the respondents executed the impugned deeds during the pendency of Supreme Court proceedings, attempting to defeat the award's execution. The Court found that the Trial Court failed to adequately consider the prima facie case and the balance of convenience, warranting remand for reconsideration.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court partly allowed the Appeals from Order. The Court:
- Quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 25.08.2025 and 10.09.2025 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon.
- Remanded the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration of Exhibit-6 (temporary injunction application) after examining the signed certified copy of the 2005 award.
- Disposed of the connected Civil Applications.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Signed Certified Copy Suffices Under Section 31(5)
- Practitioners can rely on a signed certified copy of an arbitral award to establish its existence under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration Act.
- Courts are likely to accept a certified photocopy of the original award, provided it is authenticated by the arbitrator's signature.
Prima Facie Evidence of Award Existence
- The judgment reinforces that prima facie evidence, such as a signed certified copy, can be sufficient to establish an award's existence, shifting the burden to the opposing party to disprove it.
- Parties disputing an award's validity must provide strong evidence to counter the certified copy's authenticity.
Trial Courts Must Examine Record Thoroughly
- Trial Courts are expected to examine the entire record, including documents from related proceedings, before denying interim relief.
- Failure to consider available evidence, such as a signed certified copy of an award, may lead to orders being set aside on appeal.
Conduct During Pendency of Disputes
- Transactions executed during the pendency of disputes, particularly when parties are directed to explore amicable settlements, may be viewed as attempts to frustrate the award's execution.
- Courts may grant injunctive relief to prevent alienation of properties where such conduct is established.
