Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Nilkantha Shidramappa Ningashetti vs Kashinath Somanna Ningashetti And ... on 28 April, 1961
7. We are, however, not impressed by his contentions. The question of limitation is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nilkantha Sidramappa Ningashetti v. Kashinath Somanna Nigashetti, , and followed by late Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Mukherjea in his judgment dated February 11, 1965, in Award Case No. 263 of 1962 intituled Jamunalal Janakilal v. Budge Budge Jute Mills Limited, of this Court. It is a settled law that the service of a notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act as prescribed by the rules of this Court is not essential for the purpose of making an application for setting aside of the Award and that the application will be time-barred if it is made after 30 days from the date the petitioner is orally informed about the filing of the award in court, for there is no distinction between a formal and informal notice in this behalf under the Limitation Act as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case.
Ballabhadas Mathurdas Lakhani And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Malkapur on 1 April, 1970
9. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in that case is binding on this Court even if certain aspects of the matter were not considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court; vide, Ballabhdas Mathuradas Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, Malkapur, . Further, the procedure after the publication of all awards is the same under the Arbitration Act and therefore the purported distinction made by Mr. Chakrabarty does not make any difference whatsoever.
Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan vs Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore on 19 August, 1966
13. There is also no merit in his contention relating to the alleged legal misconduct and the bias of the arbitrator. There is no allegation in the petition that the arbitrator has imported his
personal knowledge in awarding Rupees 1,63,000/-. There is also nothing in the award even to lend any support to this unmeritorious contention. That apart, these grounds were not at all taken in the petition and therefore Mr. Chakraborty is not entitled to argue it. The contentions of Mr. Chakraborty that the arbitrator was biased inasmuch as he has made a lump sum award of Rs. 1,63,000/- without specifying the rate or its basis, has no substance. The arbitrator is not bound to give any reason for making the award. He is also entitled to make a lump sum award; vide. Firm Madanlal Roshanlal Mahajan v. Hukumchand Mills Ltd., Indore, .
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
1