2002 (3) TMI 873 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Failure to appoint an umpire under bye-law No. 248(1) of the Bye-laws, rules, and regulations of the Madras Stock Exchange after the arbitrators failed to pass an award within the statutory time.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a member of the Stock Exchange, had a dispute with a sub-broker, leading to arbitration proceedings initiated in 1989. The petitioner appointed an arbitrator, but the second respondent failed to do so. The first respondent then appointed an arbitrator. Despite the matter being referred to an auditor for verification and multiple reminders, no award was passed by the arbitrators. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the appointment of an umpire under bye-law No. 248(1) of the bye-laws.

Legal Provisions:
According to bye-law 248 of the Madras Stock Exchange, an umpire must be appointed if arbitrators fail to make an award within the prescribed time. Regulation 250 mandates arbitrators to make an award within four months, with the possibility of extension with consent from parties or the council of management.

Court's Decision:
The court noted that more than four months had passed since the arbitrators were appointed, and the auditors had submitted their report. As no award was passed, the court directed the first respondent to appoint an umpire within two weeks and mandated the umpire to pass the award within eight weeks thereafter. The writ petition was allowed with no costs imposed.