Union Of India (Uoi) vs K.P. Mandal on 3 April, 1958
It is clear that both the parties apprehended that B.K. Guha may not answer to the description of the officer to whom reference could be made under the arbitration clause in the contract. Government at least knew that B.K. Guha was not the proper officer. With full knowledge of Mr. Guha's incapacity the Government as well as the contractor allowed the arbitration proceedings to go on, each representing to the other that the award that may be made by such an arbitrator would be accepted by both the parties, Either party would be estopped from challenging the competence of Mr. Guha. This is strongly urged by Mr. Arun Mukherjee on the strength of a decision of this court in the case of Union of India v. K.P. Mondal, decided by the Appeal Court consisting of Chakravartti, C. J. and Lahiri, J. and . In this case also both the parties knew that the arbitrator did not answer to the description of the officer referred to in the arbitration agreement and was not competent to make the award. Nevertheless, the parties with full knowledge that the officer had no authority appeared before the said officer, filed their respective states of fact and counter states of fact, led their own evidence and made applications to the court for extension of time, as in the instant case. It has ken held by the Appeal Court that the parties would be estopped from challenging the award, even though the arbitrator had no authority to make the award. Sarkar, J., who originally heard the application, dismissed the application on the finding that the rule of estoppel would not apply, having regard to the fact that both the parties had knowledge of the incompetence. The Appeal Court, however, reversed the decision of Sarkar, J. It was held by Chakravartti, C. J. that -