Mt. Akbari Begam vs Rahmat Husain And Ors. on 14 August, 1933
In support of this contention, reliance had boon placed upon certain observations made by Sulaiman C.J. in the Special Bench case in Mt. Akbari Begam v. Rahmat Husain (1933) 20 A.I.R. All. 861. The relevant passage of the judgment of the learned Chief Justice in that case runs as follows : In concurrence with the opinions of the learned bridges who have made this reference, I hold that agreement to abide by the statement of a particular witness is in substance not a reference to arbitration. The essence of arbitration is that the arbitrator decides the case and his award is in the nature of a judgment which is later on incorporated into a decree of the Court. The arbitrator can either proceed on the basis of his own knowledge or make inquiries and take evidence and then give his decision on such evidence. But, where the parties agree to abide by the statement of third person or a referee, the referee merely makes a statement according to his knowledge or belief and the Court then decides the case and pronounces its judgment on the basis of such statement and passes a decree thereon. The referee is not authorized to make inquiries and take evidence and then pronounce his decision on the basis of such evidence. He is called upon to make a statement according to his knowledge or belief. In the case of an arbitration, as the arbitrator's award is an expression of opinion and his procedure resembles that of a Court, the party is entitled to file objections and challenge the validity of his award. The making of a statement by a referee or a third person has no resemblance to a proceeding conducted by him as if he were a Court of law, and accordingly there can be no procedure for filing objections as to its validity.