Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
S. Mohd. Naim Mohd. Alam vs Rouraffic And Far Eastern Ltd. on 13 August, 1959 cites

Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952

32. It has been held in numerous cases that it is immaterial if the arbitrator or Umpire swears an affidavit that information obtained by him ex parte has not influenced his mind one way or the other or has not resulted in any prejudice. It is sufficient to refer to the Supreme Court case of Vengamma v. Kesanna mentioned in an earlier part of this judgment in support of this proposition. Some of the English cases having a bearing on this point are dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court. (See 1952-15 S.C.J 630 at pages 632-633: ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 27 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

In Re: Arbitration Between Gulzarilal ... vs Busi And Stephenson Ltd. on 29 August, 1952

31. In the case of Fuerst Bros. and Co. v. Stephenson, (1951) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 429 the Umpire in a commercial arbitration, (after he had finished hearing the arbitrators) approached one of them and asked him for further information, which was given, it being left to that arbitrator to tell the other what was going on. On a motion by the other party to set aside the award, it was argued that it was the practice in the course of such an arbitration for the Umpire to leave it to one arbitrator to keep the other informed. The court set aside the award holding that the alleged practice would not justify what was done but remarking also as to the alleged practice "I doubt the validity of it as a matter of procedure". (See Russell--16th Ed. page 119).
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1