Limited remission of arbitration award does not void the entire award; finality preserves the unchallenged portion.

Where an arbitration award is remitted only on specified matters, the finality of the remission order prevents it from being reopened indirectly in later proceedings. Section 16(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was construed to apply where the whole award, or the part actually remitted, fails on reconsideration; it did not justify voiding the entire award merely because the arbitrator did not reconsider the limited matters within time. The valid, unchallenged portion of the award remained enforceable, and the restricted remission did not invalidate the award as a whole.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on remission of only specific matters under section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the failure of the arbitrator to reconsider those matters within time renders the entire award void under section 16(3), and whether the unchallenged remission order could be reopened in the appeal.

Analysis: The order remitting the award had limited reconsideration to two specified points and directed that the remainder of the award would remain intact. That order was never challenged and had attained finality, so it could not be reopened indirectly in the later proceedings. Section 16(3) was held to operate in relation to an award remitted under section 16(1), but the provision was construed as applicable where the whole award, or the part actually remitted, fails on reconsideration. The statutory language did not justify treating the entire award as void when only specific matters were sent back. The valid portion of the award remained enforceable, and the authorities relied upon supported the distinction between total remission and remission of only some matters.

Conclusion: Section 16(3) did not apply so as to void the entire award in the present case, and the appeal against the restricted remission failed.

---