9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of arbitration award, validity of signatures on document Ex.D-8, application of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenge under Section 37 of the Act.
Interpretation of Arbitration Award: The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement regarding the sale of cement. Disputes arose, leading to arbitration. The arbitrator rejected the claimant-respondent's plea regarding the signatures on document Ex.D-8, stating they were not binding due to a mistake by the respondent. The arbitrator held the appellant liable to pay the respondent a sum of Rs. 49.90 lakhs with interest. Objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed, and the Addl. District Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, awarding Rs. 62,000 with interest. The High Court was approached under Section 37 of the Act. Validity of Signatures on Document Ex.D-8: The Supreme Court noted that when a person signs a document, there is a presumption that they have read and understood it, unless there is proof of force or fraud. The Court emphasized that businessmen, being cautious with their money, would have carefully reviewed the document before signing. In this case, without any allegation of force or fraud, the Court found it hard to accept the respondent's claim that the document was signed under a mistake. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view on this matter, leading to the appeal being allowed, the High Court judgment being set aside, and the case being remanded for further proceedings. Application of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The respondent had filed objections under Section 34 of the Act, which were considered by the Addl. District Judge. The Judge ruled in favor of the appellant, awarding a lesser amount compared to the arbitration award. This order was challenged before the High Court under Section 37 of the Act. Challenge under Section 37 of the Act: The High Court judgment addressed the issue of the validity of the signatures on Ex.D-8. The Court noted that the arbitrator did not accept the claimant-respondent's argument regarding the nature of the signatures. The High Court considered whether the admission on the document was erroneous or conclusive proof. Ultimately, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's decision on this matter, leading to the appeal being allowed and the case being remanded for further proceedings.
|
