9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to arbitration award based on error apparent on the face of the award. 2. Interpretation of the arbitration clause in the contract regarding the time limit for invoking arbitration. 3. Application of Section 28(b) of the Contract Act to the arbitration clause in the contract. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged an arbitration award dated January 17, 1994, alleging that the arbitrator erred by concluding that the claim was time-barred. The petitioner argued that the arbitration clause was invoked within the stipulated time frame as disputes were raised within 90 days of the final bill payment. The petitioner claimed that the arbitrator ignored crucial evidence, leading to a flawed decision. 2. The respondent countered the petitioner's argument by asserting that the arbitration clause required invocation within 90 days of intimation of the final bill, not the actual payment date. The respondent contended that the letter dated May 7, 1984, was irrelevant as per the terms of the contract. The respondent deemed the objections raised by the petitioner as false and frivolous. 3. The court analyzed Clause 25 of the contract, which stated that failure to demand arbitration within 90 days of the final bill intimation would result in waiving the claim. The petitioner invoked Section 28(b) of the Contract Act, claiming that the clause extinguished their right to arbitration after the specified period, depriving them of a valuable right. The court found merit in this argument and set aside the arbitration award, directing a fresh consideration of the claims on their merits. 4. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting contract clauses in line with statutory provisions to ensure fairness and uphold parties' rights. The decision emphasized the need for arbitrators to consider all relevant evidence and legal provisions while adjudicating disputes to prevent unjust outcomes.
|
