Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.45 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Section 33 in The Arbitration Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
(15) Thus the consistent view of various courts in India has from the very beginning been that arbitrator is bound by rules of natural justice including the principle incorporated in the maxim Audi Alteram Partem. It may be mentioned here that action of arbitrator cannot be defended on the plea that the evidence was inconsequential or did not affect his mind or was of trifling nature. The arbitrator cannot take it upon himself that this evidence improperly admitted bad no effect on his mind. The arbitrator must observe principles of natural justice under which both parties are entitled to make representations on their own case and the case of his opponent. The courts will not permit slightest deviation from principles of natural justice even if such deviation relates to a trifling matter. In fact is impossible to gauge the influence which ex parte statement/document had upon the mind of arbitrator. The case is brought within the general principle that he might have been influenced. This court will not inquire whether or not the mind of the arbitrator has been affected. It was in fact held by the Supreme Court in S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan and others, that "the principles of natural justice know of no exclusionary rule dependent on whether it would have made any difference if natural justice had been observed. The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial of natural justice is unnecessary. It all comes from a person who has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is not prejudiced".
Savarala Venkatasubbiah vs Kumara Ramiah on 28 September, 1934
This ruling was in turn followed in Savarala Venkatasubbiah v. Kumara Ramiah .
Harising Nehal Chand vs Kankinarah Co., Ltd. on 1 July, 1920
(13) A division Bench of Calcutta High Court of the view in Hari Singh Nehal Chand v. Kankinarah Co. Ltd. Air 1921 Calcutta 657 that "although the court must not insist upon a too minute observance of the regularity of forms among persons who naturally, by their education or by their opportunities, cannot be supposed to be very familiar with legal procedure, there are some principles of justice which it is impossible to disregard. Whether the arbitration is conducted on the footing that it is a mercantile or a legal arbitration, the first principles of justice must be equally applied in every case. One of these elementary principles is that an arbitrator must not receive information from one side which is not disclosed to the other, whether information is given orally or in the shape of the documents".
1