Functus officio and award validity: a post-filing signature by a dissenting arbitrator cannot sustain a decree.
An arbitral award must be complete and valid when filed in court, because the arbitrators become functus officio once the award is made and filed. A dissenting arbitrator cannot later sign the award, and the court has no power to authorise that post-filing signature. An award rendered ineffective on that basis cannot support a decree, and Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only where the decree rests on a legally valid award. The award was therefore invalid, and the decree based on it could not be sustained in the appellants' favour.
Issues: Whether an award became invalid when, after filing in court, the dissenting arbitrator later signed it, and whether a decree based on such award could be sustained under Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Analysis: Once the award had been made and filed in court, the arbitrators had exhausted their authority and became functus officio. The dissenting arbitrator could not subsequently sign the award, and the court had no power to permit such signature. On that basis, the award was not a valid and legal award. Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure was treated as applying only where there is a valid award capable of supporting a decree, and not where the award itself is legally ineffective.
Conclusion: The award was invalid, and the decree made in accordance with it could not be interfered with in the appellants' favour; the appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: An award must be valid and complete when filed, because the arbitrators become functus officio thereafter, and Section 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies only to decrees founded on a legally valid award.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
