Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.54 seconds)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Dalmia Iron And Steel Ltd. on 19 May, 1964 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs K.P. Mandal on 3 April, 1958

In Union of India v. K. P. Mandal, , the arbitration clause in a contract for execution of certain work by A with the Government of India prescribed that except as otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes arising out of or relating to the contract would be referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being. Disputes arose between the parties and the Government appointed one M as an arbitrator to adjudicate on the claim made by it against A and informed A about the "appointment. Both the parties knew that M was not competent to act as arbitrator according to the qualification laid down by the arbitration clause. A not only submitted to the arbitration of M. on the Government's claim but also put forward a counter-claim against the Government for adjudication by the same arbitrator; he took part in the proceedings from the beginning to the end; he agreed to extensions of time for filing the award; and when the award went against him sought to set aside the award on the ground, that M was not competent to act as arbitrator. Our Appellate Court (Chakravartti C. J. and Lahiri, J.) has held that the rule of estoppel binds A and prevents him from contending that M was not qualified under the terms of the agreement to arbitrate in the dispute.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Champsey Bhara And Company vs The Jivraj Balloo Spinning And C. Co. ... on 6 March, 1923

13. In the present application also, it seems to me that, it was for the arbitrators or their umpire to decide upon construction of the terms of the Policy of Insurance' whether the claim made in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim tame within the scope of the Policy. If the arbitrators or their umpire have gone into the question and determined the same in a particular way, it is not open to this Court to disturb or interfere with that determination except, on the facts herein, in the case of an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Judicial Committee in Champsey Bhara and Co. v. Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Co., 50 Ind App. 324 at p. 331: (AIR 1923 FC 65 at p. 69) has explained that an error in law on the face of the award means, that you can find in the award or a document actually in-corporated thereto, as for instance a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment, some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous. In the present case, no such problem has arisen. In the body of the umpire's award, for instance, there is no statement or indication as to how the relevant terms in the Policy of Insurance have been construed by him. If such a statement or indication was there, different considerations might have arisen.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 286 - Full Document

Gurdeo Singh And Ors. vs Chandrika Singh And Ors. on 10 April, 1907

14. Mr. Sircar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in his reply to the point of absence of objection contended that, this was not a case where the arbitrators or their umpire proceeded with the reference without any protest whatsoever. Learned counsel relies on the minutes of the 5th March, 1963, to contend that counsel for the Insurance Company pointed out to the arbitrators and their umpire that the claim in paragraph 17 of the statement of claim did not arise out of the policy of insurance. As I have already said this is not an objection to jurisdiction, But assuming that, it is such an objection it was made practically at the last stage of the proceedings when evidence had already been gone into and costs were incurred to a considerable extent for purposes of determination of Issue No. 2 raised in the proceedings. If objection is to be taken, in my view, it must be taken at the earliest possible opportunity or at any rate, at an early stage of the proceedings. Reference may in this connection be made to Russel on Arbitration, 17th Edition, at pp. 174 and 352. Failure to object at an early stage acts as an estoppel. It was observed by Mookerjee, J. in Gurdeo Singh v. Chandrika Singh, ILR 36 Cal 193 at p. 208:
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1