9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The appeal arises from a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking to quash an order issued by the Mining Officer and a prayer to restrain the recovery of the amount involved. Issue 1: Interpretation of Clause 15 as an arbitration agreement The primary issue in the case was whether Clause 15 of the lease deed constituted an arbitration agreement between the parties. The clause provided for the resolution of disputes by the lessor, which in this case was the Governor. The Court analyzed the language of the clause and determined that it indeed spelled out an arbitration agreement. Reference was made to the Arbitration Act, 1940, which defines an arbitration agreement as a written agreement to submit differences to arbitration. The Court concluded that Clause 15, by providing for disputes to be decided by the lessor, met the criteria of an arbitration agreement. Issue 2: Validity of the decision of the arbitrator The next issue addressed was the validity of the decision made by the arbitrator, respondent 4. The Court noted that the appellant had been given a fair hearing, represented by her advocate and agent. The arbitrator had called for fresh calculations and provided further hearings to the appellant. It was observed that the arbitrator had acted in accordance with the principles of natural justice, narrowing down the dispute and making an award based on the submissions and evidence presented. Issue 3: Challenge of the award through a writ petition The final issue dealt with whether the award made by the arbitrator could be challenged through a writ petition in the High Court. The Court emphasized that the Arbitration Act, 1940, provided a comprehensive framework for challenging awards, including provisions for setting aside or enforcing an award. As the Act constituted a self-contained code, the Court held that seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 was not the appropriate course of action. The Court concluded that the High Court was correct in declining to entertain the writ petition, as the dispute could have been addressed through the mechanisms outlined in the Arbitration Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the High Court to decline the writ petition. The Court found that Clause 15 of the lease deed constituted an arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had conducted the proceedings fairly, and the challenge to the award should have been pursued under the Arbitration Act, rather than through a writ petition.
|
