Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.22 seconds)
Kunthi Ammal And Anr. vs Sarangapani Chetti on 22 April, 1930 cites

Gopalji Kuverji vs Morarji Jeram Naranji on 16 January, 1919

8. We will now proceed to see how far this argument of the respondent can be accepted. Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act deals with the power of the Court in certain cases to appoint an arbitrator, umpire or a third arbitrator. Section 9 of the Act deals with the power which the parties have in certain cases to supply the vacancy. I do not think it is necessary for deciding this case to deal at length with the scope of the provisions of these two sections, as I am prepared to accept the reasoning of the learned Judges in Gopalji Kimherji v. Morarji Jeram (1919) I.L.R. 43 B. 809, in which the question is discussed elaborately. In that case, strongly relied on by the respondent, it was held by Scott, C.J., and Hayward, J., reversing the judgment of Marten, J., that, in a case of submission to three named arbitrators all of them after acting having declined to proceed any further, the Court had no jurisdiction to appoint fresh' arbitrators in their place under the Indian Arbitration Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

General Electric Trading Co. vs Siemens (India) Ltd. on 14 December, 1928

The appellants argue that this decision is wrong and rely on General Electric Trading Co. v. Siemens (India), Ltd. (1928) I.L.R. 56 C. 848 Sections 8 and 9 of the Indian Act correspond to Sections 4 and 5 of the English Arbitration Act which correspond to clauses 12 and 13 of the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854. So far as I can see, though there is some variation in the wording of Sections 5 and 6 of the English Arbitration Act from the wording of the corresponding section of the Common Law Procedure Act, the purport of the sections remains exactly the same. In my view there is no support for the view of Ghose, J., that the wording of Sections 5 and 6 of the English Arbitration Act would make them applicable to cases of three arbitrators, cases to which admittedly Sections 12 and 13 of the Common Law Procedure Act would not apply. In this connection, it may be observed that In re Smith & Service and Nelson & Sons (1890) 25 Q.B.D. 545, relied on by the learned Judges of the Bombay High Court, was decided after the passing of the English Act of 1899, and under it it was held that-
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1