2011(3)SCALE20, (2011)4SCC616, [2011]4SCR432, AIR2011SC1374, 2011(1)ARBLR512(SC), 2011 3 AWC2919SC, 2011(3)BomCR48, [2011]101CLA324(SC), (2011)2CompLJ137(SC), 2011(3)CTC777, 2011(3)KCCRSN196, 2011-3-LW177, 2011(2)RCR(Civil)598,  RLW2011(3)SC1908

In light of the discussions made above we find the impugned order of the Bombay High Court unsustainable. The High Court was clearly in error not correctly following the decision of this Court in Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors and in taking a contrary view. The High Court overlooked that what section 31(5) contemplates is not merely the delivery of any kind of a copy of the award but a copy of the award that is duly signed by the members of the arbitral tribunal. In the facts of the case the appellants would appear to be deriving undue advantage due to the omission of the arbitrator to give them a signed copy of the award coupled with the supply of a copy of the award to them by the claimant-respondent but that would not change the legal position and it would be wrong to tailor the law according to the facts of a particular case. In the light of the discussion made above this appeal must succeed. We, accordingly, set aside the judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court and the Principal District Judge, Latur. The application made by the appellants under section 34 of the Act is restored before the Principal District Judge, Latur, who shall now proceed to hear the parties on merits and pass an order on the application in accordance with law. Since the 1matter is quite old, it is hoped and expected that the Principal District Judgewill dispose this matter preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order.