Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.58 seconds)Payyavula Vengamma vs Payyavula Kesanna And Others on 29 October, 1952
32. It has been held in numerous cases that it is immaterial if the arbitrator or Umpire swears an affidavit that information obtained by him ex parte has not influenced his mind one way or the other or has not resulted in any prejudice. It is sufficient to refer to the Supreme Court case of Vengamma v. Kesanna mentioned in an earlier part of this judgment in support of this proposition. Some of the English cases having a bearing on this point are dealt with in the judgment of the Supreme Court. (See 1952-15 S.C.J 630 at pages 632-633: ).
Section 7 in Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937
Florrie Edridge vs Rustomji Dhanjibhoy Sethna on 9 October, 1933
34. It has been argued on behalf of the plaintiff company that the appellant by not objecting to this improper procedure at the time, had waived the irregularity, and their conduct also shows that they impliedly agreed to such procedure being adopted. This case of waiver and implied agreement involves questions of law and fact and in the absence of specific pleading and specific issue, such pleas cannot be allowed to be raised (see Florrie Edridge v. Rustomji Danjibhoy and the Supreme Court case already referred to at page 633 .
In Re: Arbitration Between Gulzarilal ... vs Busi And Stephenson Ltd. on 29 August, 1952
31. In the case of Fuerst Bros. and Co. v. Stephenson, (1951) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 429 the Umpire in a commercial arbitration, (after he had finished hearing the arbitrators) approached one of them and asked him for further information, which was given, it being left to that arbitrator to tell the other what was going on. On a motion by the other party to set aside the award, it was argued that it was the practice in the course of such an arbitration for the Umpire to leave it to one arbitrator to keep the other informed. The court set aside the award holding that the alleged practice would not justify what was done but remarking also as to the alleged practice "I doubt the validity of it as a matter of procedure". (See Russell--16th Ed. page 119).
Shiva Jute Baling Ltd vs Hindley & Co. Ltd on 5 April, 1955
In view of the Bench decision of this Court which is reported in Shiva Jute Baling Ltd. v. Hindley and Co. Ltd., 57 Cal. W.N. 573, from which at present we see no reason to differ, this point need not be pursued any further.
1