JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral): Admitted facts giving rise to filing of this application are that against the award dated 24.4.2001 passed by the Arbitrator, petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to r-as "the Act"). 2. A reading of the objection petition no where indicates as to when the signed copy of the arbitral award was received by the petitioner. Whether it was received at all or not, is a fact at least not disclosed in the objections. However, its receipt is acknowledged in OMP No. 582 of 2004. Besides this, no copy of this award has been attached with the objection petition i.e., OMP (M) No. 79 of 2001. 3. While contesting the objections of the petitioner, respondent-State raised an objection regarding maintainability of the objection petition due to non-filing of signed copy of the award. Consequently, prayer was made on behalf of the respondent for dismissal of these objections. 4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 22.7.2000: 1. Whether the award dated 27.4.2001 is liable to be set aside on the grounds stated in the objection petition? OPO. 2. Relief. 5. Again as per order of the Court evidence if any was to be produced on affidavits by the parties within two weeks. Needful has been done by them. 6. Another fact that needs to be noted here is that respondent in this case has also filed objections against the award of the Arbitrator. These are registered as OMP (M) No. 78 of 2001. 7. It is in this background that OMP No. 582 of 2004 has been filed by the petitioner. For ready reference its contents are extracted herein below:- "1. That the petitioner had filed OMP No. 79 of 2001 for setting aside the final award dated 24th April, 2001. 2. That the petitioner inadvertently by mistake had not filed that signed copy of the final award with the Honble High Court at the time of filing of OMP No. 79/2001. 3. That the matter was fixed for hearing and it was found that the signed copy of the final award is not on record with OMP No. 79/2001 but on the other hand the respondent had filed signed copy of the final award with their OMP No. 78/2001 and the same is on record. 3. That the matter was fixed for hearing and it was found that the signed copy of the final award is not on record with OMP No. 79/2001 but on the other hand the respondent had filed signed copy of the final award with their OMP No. 78/2001 and the same is on record. The petitioner prayer for time to file the signed copy of the final award with the Honble High Court of Shimla. 4. That the petitioner searched their office records exhaustively and found that the copy of the signed final award is missing alongwith some other office documents and files, which has happened because of shifting of the files to the new office of the petitioner. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present application may kindly be allowed and the Honble Arbitrator be directed to issue another copy of the award." 8. This application is supported with the affidavit of one Bharat Bhushan Manwani, who has described his occupation as Consultant’. Filing of this affidavit had to be noted, because of objection of the respondent in reply to this application and its effect will be dealt with herein below. 9. Shri Neeraj Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that no plea regarding objections under Section 34 of the Act being time barred has been raised by the respondent. Per him, there was no need to file the signed copy of the award received by his client under Section 31(5) of the Act. Thus, the main objection petition, i.e. OMP (M) No. 79/2001 needs to be disposed of after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. Alternatively, he submitted that a direction needs to be issued to the Arbitrator to provide a duly signed copy of the award. 10. These pleas were contested by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. This application was not maintainable, according to him. Further he also urged that the affidavit in support of it is not sworn by a person who could have done so on behalf of petitioner, Scope of judicial intervention being limited under the Act, particularly Section 5 thereof, relief claimed in this application cannot be granted to the petitioner in the OMP. 11. After having examined the matter and having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, this application deserves to be dismissed. 11. After having examined the matter and having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, this application deserves to be dismissed. Why and under what circumstances prayer made in the application extracted hereinabove needs to be allowed, learned Counsel was not in a position to satisfy the Court. Though he argued that after receipt of signed copy of the award from the Arbitrator, the same was found missing alongwith some office documents because of shifting of files. When this position was detected and by whom? And whether it was after filing objections under Section 34 of the Act or before that, there is nothing said in the application. It is silent in this behalf. 12. Regarding authority of this court to direct the Arbitrator to give another signed copy of the award, again learned Counsel was not in a position to refer to any provision of the Act, whereunder such a direction can be issued. Thus, it can safely be said that it was never intended by the legislature to have called upon the court for the issuance of such a direction. No benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the signed copy of the award filed by the respondent with OMP No. 78 of 2001. Therefore, alternative prayer made in this application in no circumstance can be allowed being riot warranting by the Act. Accordingly this prayer is hereby rejected. 13. Additional reason to reject this application is, that who is Bharat Bhushan Manwani, qua the petitioner-Company. Whether he is a duly authorized signatory, or is its company Secretary, and/or the Principal Officer, who is competent to have sworn affidavit accompanying this application, as per memorandum of association of the petitioner-Company, he is silent. He claims himself to be consultant. It hardly needs to be clarified that in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the person who has sworn affidavit in support of the application was required to clarify his status vis-a-vis the petitioner-Company. Admittedly, there is nothing either in the application supra, or in the affidavit so far its deponent is concerned qua the petitioner-Company. 14. Section 31(5) is to be read in harmony with Section 34 of the Act. Admittedly, there is nothing either in the application supra, or in the affidavit so far its deponent is concerned qua the petitioner-Company. 14. Section 31(5) is to be read in harmony with Section 34 of the Act. Purpose behind delivery of signed copy of arbitral award is, that limitation can be worked out in case objections are to be filed against such an award. Therefore, filing of signed copy has relevance. In a given case a litigant like petitioner can plead in the objections that signed copy was received on a particular date and from the date of such receipt objection petition is within time. There is not a murmur to this effect in the OMP (M) 79/2001 or in OMP No. 582/2004, supra. There is no prayer on the part of the petitioner to allow it sometime to place on record a copy of the award photostat/signed in this case. 15. Further even if a direction as prayed for is issued to the Arbitrator to provide a signed copy of the award to the petitioner, it will not serve any purpose, as it cannot be spelt that it is intended to be placed on record alongwith objection petition. 16. Para 2 of OMP No. 582/2004, clearly shows that it is admitted case of the petitioner that signed copy of award was not filed at the time of filing of OMP (M) No. 79/2001. Reason for this omission given is inadvertent mistake. Question of mistake will only arise, when something is required to be done, had not in fact been done. On this plea also objection of the respondent that OMP (M) No. 79/2001 being not maintainable needs to be upheld. 17. No other point is urged. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this OMP being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. At the same time, it is held that for want of signed copy of the Arbitral award, objections against it filed vide OMP (M) No. 79 of 2001, are held not maintainable and are dismissed. Argument to the contrary that it is not required to be filed is also turned down.