I am sorry, but there appears to be an error in the case information you have provided. The Arbitration Act of 1940 is an Act of the Indian Parliament, not a court case. Additionally, a "Union of India - Subsection" is not a recognized court or legal entity. Finally, a case date of 11 March 1940 is suspect because the Arbitration Act was enacted in 1940, making it unlikely a case would be decided on the same date.

To provide an accurate case summary, I need the correct case name, court, and date. Please double-check and provide the correct information.

However, I can provide a general explanation of Section 31(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940:

Short Summary

Section 31(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, pertains to the power of the court to modify or correct an arbitration award. It allows the court to remit the award to the arbitrators for reconsideration under specific circumstances, such as where the award leaves undetermined any matter referred to arbitration, or where the award determines any matter not referred to arbitration. The ultimate goal is to ensure a complete and valid resolution of the dispute submitted to arbitration.

Facts

(Since this is a general explanation and not a specific case, there are no specific facts.) Generally, this section comes into play after an arbitration award has been made and one of the parties believes there are grounds for the court to intervene and send the award back to the arbitrators for correction or clarification.

Issues

The primary issue is whether the arbitration award is complete, unambiguous, and addresses all matters submitted to arbitration. The court must determine if the award suffers from defects that warrant remitting it to the arbitrators for reconsideration.

Arguments (Hypothetical)

• Party Seeking Remission (Petitioner): The award is incomplete because it fails to address a specific claim submitted to arbitration. Alternatively, the award is ambiguous and requires clarification from the arbitrators.
• Party Opposing Remission (Respondent): The award is valid and complete, addressing all relevant issues. The petitioner's arguments are merely an attempt to re-litigate the merits of the dispute.

Court's Reasoning

The court will carefully examine the arbitration agreement, the pleadings submitted to the arbitrators, and the award itself. It will determine whether the award is deficient in any of the ways specified in Section 31(2). The court will not re-evaluate the merits of the arbitrators' decision but will focus on whether the award is procedurally sound and complete. The court will consider principles of natural justice and fairness.

Conclusion

The court may either dismiss the application for remission, upholding the award, or remit the award to the arbitrators for reconsideration. If remitted, the arbitrators must then reconsider the award and issue a revised award. The court retains the power to confirm the original or revised award.