Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-416
(1949 Rev., S. 8159; 1969, P.A. 474, S. 2; P.A. 82-160, S. 155.)
Is a general provision and does not apply as against Sec. 31-97 governing proceedings before the board. 136 C. 205. Cited. 138 C. 68. Concerns arbitration awards generally; distinguished from Sec. 31-98. 145 C. 53. Award made after period limited must be vacated where there was no extension in writing of time for making same. 157 Conn. 362. Cited. 163 Conn. 327; 177 C. 484; 200 C. 345; 203 Conn. 133; 211 Conn. 541; 218 Conn. 646. Cited. 7 CA 272; 10 CA 292; 23 CA 727; 26 Conn.App. 418; 28 Conn.App. 270; 29 Conn.App. 484; 30 Conn.App. 580; 32 Conn.App. 250; 41 CA 649. Applies only when agreement does not specify time within which award must be rendered. 80 Conn.App. 1. Because arbitrator held the hearing open in order to receive additional information, the award was rendered within 30 days from the date the hearings were closed. 151 CA 307. Statute is directory rather than mandatory. 18 CS 239. Where there was nothing in the application to indicate when the arbitrator was empowered to act, a finding that the award was not made within the time limit was overruled. 19 CS 385. Where award is not rendered within the 60-day period, motion to vacate must be made within 30 days thereafter under Sec. 52-420; motion to strike answer in lieu of demurrer permissible procedure. 20 CS 94. Only the parties to an arbitration agreement may extend the 60-day period. Id., 185. Not applicable to an arbitration before State Board of Mediation and Arbitration. Id., 303. Statute is not applicable to arbitration of a grievance between an employer and a union arising under a collective bargaining contract. 36 CS 223. Cited. 41 Conn.Supp. 302. Subsec. (a): If there is no evidence of an express extension of the 30-day requirement, there is nothing to support a finding of waiver; failure to object to an untimely arbitration award is insufficient to indicate waiver. 100 CA 373. Subsec. (b): Defendant's motion to vacate arbitration award for lack of notice was properly denied because defendant's husband received written notice and had apparent authority to accept written notice on behalf of defendant. 120 Conn.App. 117.