Court observed that a bare perusal of the impugned award would show that it was signed by two members of the Arbitral Tribunal on 12.06.2017, a fact evident from the printed date as also from signatures of the third Arbitrator, which was prefixed by the remark ‘approved’. Relying on provisions of Section 31 of the 1996 Act, which provide that where the Arbitral Tribunal consists of more than one Arbitrator, signatures of majority of the members shall be sufficient, so long as the reason for any omitted signature is stated as also on Section 29A of the 1996 Act, it was held that the award was not vulnerable on this ground. The judgment was carried in appeal by the Petitioner before the Division Bench in M/s. Chandok Machineries v. M/s. S.N. Sunderson & Co. , 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12782. It is clear from a reading of the judgment of the Division Bench that the validity of the award was upheld on the ground that the same was properly made within the time limit stipulated under the 1996 Act. The Division Bench noted that two Arbitrators had signed on 12.06.2017, just prior to the date on which mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal would have terminated under Section 29A i.e. 13.06.2017. The third Arbitrator signed the award on 28.06.2017 and by subsequent order dated 05.08.2017, while disposing the application filed by the Respondent under Section 33(1)(a) of the 1996 Act, Tribunal gave reasons for the late signing of the award by the third Arbitrator. The Division Bench observed that the third Arbitrator had signed the award albeit belatedly and the reasons for late signing constituted sufficient compliance with Section 31(2) of the 1996 Act and were good enough to cure the original lacuna in the award dated 12.06.2017. It is, therefore, clear that in the decision rendered by this Court in Chandok Machineries (supra), since the award was signed by the majority, before the date of termination of
