Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.31 seconds)Section 21 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth And Others vs Chintamanrao Balaji And Others on 19 November, 1963
"6. As regards the award of an arbitrator under the Act, the law is well settled that
the arbitrator's adjudication is generally considered binding between the parties for he is a Tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the Court to set aside the award is restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the Act, viz. (a) if the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings; or (b) when the award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35; or (c) when the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. Under clause (c) of Section 30 the Court can set aside an award which suffers from an error on the face of the award. It is, however, not open to the Court to speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator, to arrive at his conclusion. But, the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is limited by the reference and if the arbitrator has assumed jurisdiction not possessed by him, the award to the extent to which it is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction would be invalid and liable to be set aside (See: Jivarajbhai Ujmshi Sheth v. Chintamanrao Balaji, . This position at law has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in its recent decision in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokliamal Contractors, 1989 (2) SCC 721. It has been held that an arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission he is required to give such reasons and if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through such reasons and that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does
not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires him to give reasons.
Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923
"Where the Umpire as the sole arbitrator has awarded a sum to the contractor on account of certain claims made by the contractor after considering the argument of the Board for disallowing it, but without expressly adverting to the question of limitation the award is not vitiated on account of any mistake or error apparent on the face of the award. The umpire as sole arbitrator was not bound to give a reasoned award and if in passing the award he makes a mistake of law or of fact, that is no ground for challenging the validity of the award. It is only when an erroneous proposition of law is stated in the award and which is
the basis of the award, can the award be set aside or remitted on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of the record. Champsen Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Co. Ltd., AIR 1923 PC 66 and Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture (P) Ltd., ."
Section 35 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
N. Chellappan vs Secretary, Kerala State Electricity ... on 21 November, 1974
20, (extracted at Page 41), the Supreme Court in N. Chellappan v. Secretary, Kerala Stale Electricity Board, (supra), acted upon the principle that acquiescence defeated the right of the applicant at a later stage. In that case the facts were similar. It was held by conduct there was acquiescence. Even in a case where initial order was not passed by consent of the parties a party by participation and acquiescence can preclude future challenges.