Parties and tribunals lavish attention on the merits of an arbitration and surprisingly little on the mechanics of the instrument that ends it. Yet Section 31 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is where awards are made valid or vulnerable: it requires the award to be in writing and signed, to state reasons unless the parties have dispensed with them, to state its date and the place of arbitration — and it requires a signed copy to be delivered to each party. Each requirement has litigation consequences, and the last one starts the most important clock in the Act.
The checklist the statute writes
| Sub-section | Requirement | Consequence if defective |
|---|---|---|
| 31(1)–(2) | Written award, signed by the tribunal; majority signatures suffice if the omission is explained | Formation challenge — the instrument may not be an "award" at all |
| 31(3) | Reasons, unless dispensed with by agreement or a consent award | Setting-aside exposure for breach of the Act's mandatory procedure |
| 31(4) | Date and place of arbitration stated; award deemed made at the place | Seat and timeline disputes migrate into enforcement |
| 31(5) | Signed copy delivered to each party | The Section 34 limitation clock does not start against a party not served |
| 31(6) | Interim awards permitted on matters the tribunal may finally decide | — |
| 31(7) | Interest: tribunal's discretion for the pre-award period unless the contract provides otherwise; post-award interest at the statutory default if the award is silent | Computation disputes in execution |
| 31(8) | Costs fixed in accordance with the Section 31A regime | Costs challenges |
Reasons: the heart of the modern award
The 1996 Act reversed the old position in which unreasoned awards were the norm. The discipline of Section 31(3) is what allows the limited judicial review the Act contemplates to function at all: a court asked to test an award against public policy or patent illegality can only do so against the tribunal's stated reasoning. In practice, the quality bar is functional rather than literary — the award must let a reader understand what was decided and why, linking the evidence to the conclusions on each claim. Tribunals protect their awards by dealing with each head of claim and defence distinctly; parties protect themselves by framing claims in a structure the award can follow, since a tribunal's omission to decide a claim that was clearly put is itself a recognised ground of attack, and the Act's correction machinery — Section 33's additional-award and interpretation procedure, and the court's power under Section 34(4) to remit so the tribunal can eliminate curable defects — exists precisely for reasoning gaps short of invalidity.
The consent-award exception deserves care. An award on agreed terms needs no reasons, but it must still comply with the rest of Section 31 — writing, signatures, date, place, delivery — and it has the same status and effect as any other award on the merits. Parties settling mid-arbitration should insist the settlement is embodied in a Section 30 award rather than a bare agreement: the award is enforceable as a decree; the agreement is only a contract.
Interest and costs: the money the formalities carry
Section 31(7) splits the timeline. For the period between cause of action and award, the tribunal has discretion over interest — rate, rests and the sums it attaches to — but the contract governs where it speaks; a contractual bar or fixed rate binds the tribunal. From the award to payment, the award controls, and where it is silent the statutory default rate applies — two percentage points above the prevailing current repo-linked rate the provision prescribes. The practical drafting lesson runs to both instruments: contracts should state their interest regime deliberately, and tribunals should award interest expressly for both periods, because silence breeds execution-stage litigation that outlives the arbitration.
Delivery: the step parties forget to prove
Before filing or resisting any post-award proceeding, audit the award against Section 31: signatures and explanations, reasons or a valid dispensation, date and place, interest structure, costs, and proof of delivery. The audit takes an hour and decides which arguments exist.
Note: this explainer is for general information only and is not legal advice.
Frequently Asked Questions
Must every arbitrator sign the award?
Section 31(1) requires signature by the members of the tribunal, and Section 31(2) makes the signatures of the majority sufficient in multi-member tribunals — provided the reason for any omitted signature is stated. An award signed by the majority with the omission explained is valid; an unexplained missing signature invites challenge on the award's very formation.
When can an award go unreasoned?
In two situations under Section 31(3): where the parties have agreed that no reasons are to be given, and where the award is on agreed terms — a consent award under Section 30 recording a settlement. In every other case the award must state the reasons upon which it is based; reasons are the default rule, not a courtesy.
Why do the date and place in the award matter?
The stated date fixes when the award is "made", which matters for the tribunal's mandate and time limits; the award is deemed made at the stated place of arbitration, which anchors the seat — and the seat determines which courts supervise the award. Interest and costs computations also key off the award's date under Section 31(7) and the costs regime.
What does "delivery" of the award mean, and why is it decisive?
Section 31(5) requires a signed copy to be delivered to each party. Delivery is not a formality: the limitation for a setting-aside application under Section 34(3) runs from the date the party received the award, and the enforcement window under Section 36 opens by reference to that period. Delivery to counsel or to an agent raises recurring disputes — the safe course for every party is to record, in writing, the date the signed copy reached it.