Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (2.61 seconds)Section 3 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Sri Hardyal on 10 April, 1985
In State of Punjab v. Hardyal (supra), it was held that a perusal of Sections 3 and 28 and Clause 3 of Schedule I of the Act indicates that it is open to the parties to an arbitration agreement to fix the time within which the arbitrator must give the award, but it has to be so stated in the agreement itself. If per chance no time has been specified by the parties in the arbitration agreement, then by virtue of operation of Section 3 read with Clause 3 of the First Schedule the award must be given within four months of the arbitrator entering on the reference or after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to the arbitration agreement or within such extended time as the Court may allow. Besides, Sub-section (1) of Section 28 is very wide and confers full discretion on the Court to enlarge time for making the award at any time. The discretion, however, is to be exercised judiciously. Sub-section (2) of Section 28 makes it evident that the Court alone has the power to extend time. It further provides that a clause in the arbitration agreement giving the arbitrator power to enlarge time shall be void and of no effect except when all the parties consent to such enlargement. It is not open to arbitrators at their own pleasure without consent of the parties to the agreement to enlarge time for making the award. It was further held that if an award is given beyond the prescribed time limit of four months, the parties are not estopped from challenging it. Therefore, in the circumstances even if it is taken that respondent Ram Lubhaya was proceeded against ex-parte he is not estopped from challenging the award passed by the arbitrator on the ground that it was passed beyond the time limit provided by the statute. The submissions made by the petitioner-FCI that the award is a reasonable award and also that there is evidence on record is without basis. In fact the arbitrator has not taken any evidence on record. The letters produced have not been proved on record in accordance with law and neither has any one appeared before the arbitrator to tender the letters in evidence.