Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Commercial Division

Order Date: 30 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: CE Testing Company Private Limited (Award Holder) vs. Madhucon Projects Limited and an additional respondent (Judgment Debtor).
  • The Award Holder sought enforcement of an arbitral award dated 10 Nov 2020 issued by the West Bengal Micro and Small Scale Enterprises Facilitation Council (WBMSE Facilitation Council) under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006.
  • The award related to five contracts awarded between 2011‑2012 for road and tunnel works on projects such as the Jiribam‑Tipul New Railway Line, four‑laning of NH‑34 (Barasat‑Krishnagar) and NH‑31 (Rajauli‑Bakhtiyarpur).
  • The Award Holder claimed the works were completed and that the Judgment Debtor had paid only part of the dues, leaving an outstanding principal of Rs 1,11,39,966.
  • A Chartered Accountant’s certificate dated 16 Dec 2021 stated the total amount payable as of that date was Rs 4,63,61,459 (principal Rs 1,11,39,966 + interest Rs 3,52,21,493).
  • The Judgment Debtor did not pay the amount; the Award Holder filed the present execution petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • The Judgment Debtor contested the petition on two grounds: (i) lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta Court, and (ii) the award was not a valid, enforceable award because only an unsigned certified copy had been served, breaching Sections 31(1) and 31(5) of the Arbitration Act, thereby preventing the limitation period for a Section 34 challenge from commencing.
  • The Debtor relied on case law (e.g., Sterkam Pharma v Symbiosis Pharma, Odisha Power Generation v Techniche Consulting) and argued that the WBMSE Rules 7,8,9,16 require a signed copy for the award to be final.
  • The Award Holder argued that the Council’s practice of retaining the original signed award and furnishing a certified copy (authenticated by Mr. A.K. Ghosh, Deputy Director, MSME Directorate, West Bengal) satisfied the statutory requirement, citing JD Electrical Products v Purbachal Udyog and National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation v R. Piyarelall where certified photocopies with arbitrators’ signatures were held valid.
  • The Court examined the statutory provisions: Section 31(1) requires a written award signed by the arbitrators (or majority); Section 31(5) mandates delivery of a signed copy to each party; Section 32(1) states that arbitral proceedings terminate only upon delivery of a valid signed award; Section 36(1) permits enforcement only after the limitation period for a Section 34 application has expired.
  • The Court observed that the certified copy served on the Judgment Debtor contained only a typed “Sd/-” notation without any actual or photocopied signatures of the arbitrators, distinguishing it from the precedents where visible signatures were present.
  • Consequently, the Court held that the award had not been validly delivered under Section 31(5); therefore, the arbitral proceedings had not legally terminated, the limitation period had not begun, and the execution petition was premature.
  • The Court declined to rule on territorial jurisdiction at this stage, leaving that question open for later determination should a valid signed award be obtained.

Final Outcome

  • The execution petition is dismissed as premature because the arbitral award lacks a duly signed copy as required by Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
  • Both parties are directed to approach the WBMSE Facilitation Council to obtain a copy of the award bearing the arbitrators’ signatures (or a photocopy with reproduced signatures certified as true).
  • Once a valid signed award is obtained, the parties may pursue the appropriate legal remedies, including a Section 34 challenge and, if successful, a Section 36 enforcement.
  • The question of the Calcutta Court’s territorial jurisdiction is reserved for future consideration.

Topics: Arbitration Enforcement, Court Jurisdiction