What was the key legal question in MTNL v. Siemens (2005)?

Whether an award missing a date and lacking reasons for a missing signature violates Section 31, making it invalid and liable to be set aside under Section 34.

Why did the Delhi High Court set aside the award?

Because the award did not state the date and gave no reasons for the absent signature of one arbitrator, breaching Section 31; it was treated as a proposed, incomplete award.

Do arbitrators lose authority immediately after signing?

No. The Court said the tribunal still had authority while deliberations were ongoing; the majority wrongly presumed their mandate ended.

What Sections were central to the decision?

Section 31 (form and content of award) and Section 34(2)(a)(v) (set-aside for procedure not in accordance with Part I).

What drafting lesson does this case teach?

Record the date, obtain all signatures, and if a signature is missing, explain why in the award itself to meet Section 31.

MTNL v. Siemens Public Communication Network (2005) 1 Arb LR 369

Delhi High Court 2005 Appellate Bench (2005) 1 Arb LR 369 Arbitration 7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published: 2 Nov 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 31, missing signature, award date, reasons SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Section 34, Delhi High Court, liquidated damages, ICA arbitration

Quick Summary

A three-member tribunal decided a supply dispute between MTNL and Siemens. Two arbitrators gave a joint award for Siemens; the third wrote a dissent later. The majority award had no date and no reasons for the missing third signature. The Delhi High Court held that this breached Section 31 of the 1996 Act, so the award was set aside under Section 34.

CASE_TITLE: MTNL v. Siemens Public Communication Network (2005) • PUBLISH_DATE: 2 Nov 2025 • AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India

Issues

Does an award without a date and without reasons for a missing signature violate Section 31?
If yes, can the award be set aside under Section 34(2)(a)(v) for not following the Part I procedure?

Rules

Section 31 requires an award to state reasons, be signed by all arbitrators, and—if a signature is missing—explain why. The award must also bear the date. Under Section 34, a court may set aside an award that fails to comply with the mandatory procedures of Part I.

Facts (Timeline)

Tender — MTNL invites bids (1993–94 stages). Siemens participates; LOI in Apr 1994; acceptance May 1994; final purchase order Oct 1994.

Delay & Supply — Delivery time extended to Jun 1995. Of 14 ordered systems, Siemens supplies 13; MTNL pays ₹5.49 crore after liquidated damages.

Arbitration — Siemens invokes ICA arbitration; three-member tribunal frames 10 issues (interest, equipment, LDs, etc.).

Majority Award (Aug 2000) — Two arbitrators give a joint award in Siemens’ favour.

Dissent (Nov 2000) — Third arbitrator issues a separate dissenting award.

Challenge — MTNL moves Delhi High Court citing Section 31 & 34 defects and other irregularities.

Timeline for MTNL v. Siemens Public Communication Network (2005)

Arguments

Petitioner: MTNL

Award lacked date and gave no reason for missing third signature → Section 31 breach.
Majority treated its job as over without considering dissent; award was incomplete/proposed.
Other inconsistencies (e.g., treatment of components and LDs) show procedural illegality.

Respondent: Siemens

Substance over form: two signatures suffice for majority; defects are curable.
Tribunal addressed all framed issues; dissent came later and need not block the award.
No prejudice to MTNL; award should be upheld on merits.

Judgment

Held: The Delhi High Court set aside the majority award. It violated Section 31 because it carried no date and did not explain the absence of the third arbitrator’s signature. Under Section 34(2)(a)(v), non-compliance with Part I procedures made the award vulnerable.

Incomplete Award: The two-member writing was only a proposed award; deliberations were still in progress.
Authority Continues: Majority wrongly presumed authority ceased on signing; it did not.
Inconsistency: Reasoning on certain price elements shifted without legal footing.

Judgment graphic for MTNL v. Siemens Public Communication Network (2005)

Ratio Decidendi

Form matters when the statute says so. An award must show the date, carry required signatures, and give reasons for any missing signature. If these Section 31 requirements are ignored, Section 34 permits set-aside.

Why It Matters

Sends a clear message to tribunals: date it, sign it, and explain absences.
Protects award integrity during ongoing deliberations.
Helps parties audit Section 31 compliance before enforcement.

Key Takeaways

Mandatory Form: Date + signatures + reasons for any missing signature.
No Premature Finality: Signing does not end authority if deliberations continue.
Consistency Counts: Awards must align with framed issues and prior analysis.
Section 34 Gate: Non-compliance with Part I opens the set-aside door.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “D-S-R = Don’t Slip, Record.” Date • Signatures • Reason for any missing signature.

Check

Is the date printed on the award?

Confirm

Are all signatures present?

Clarify

If one is missing, give a reason in the award text.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Application	Conclusion
Is an undated award without reasons for a missing signature valid?	Section 31 demands date, signatures, and reasons for any absence; Section 34 allows set-aside for non-compliance with Part I.	Majority award lacked a date and gave no reason for the third arbitrator’s absence; deliberations still ongoing.	Award set aside by Delhi High Court as procedurally invalid.

Glossary

Section 31: Provision detailing how an arbitral award must be written and signed, including reasons and date.
Section 34: Provision allowing a court to set aside an award for specified defects, including procedural non-compliance.
Proposed Award: An incomplete writing not reflecting the full tribunal’s final decision or proper form.