9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the award due to the time extension for making the award. 2. Vagueness and uncertainty of the arbitration agreement. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Award Due to Time Extension for Making the Award: The primary contention was whether the award was invalid as it was made beyond the prescribed period of four months from the date of the reference. The appellant argued that the time for making the award had been legally extended by mutual written consent of the parties. The record showed that the time was extended six times, with the last extension from January 29, 1959, to February 28, 1959. Each extension was mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties. Section 3 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and Clause 3 of the First Schedule implied that the award should be made within four months unless the Court extends the time. Section 28 of the Arbitration Act vested the power to enlarge the time solely in the Court, and any provision in the arbitration agreement allowing the Arbitrator to extend the time without the consent of all parties was void. The High Court held that there were only two methods to extend the time: securing an order from the Court or stipulating in the arbitration agreement for extension by a subsequent agreement. Since neither condition was met, the High Court deemed the award invalid. However, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 28(2) to mean that mutual consent for time extension need not be stipulated in the original arbitration agreement. The Arbitrator could extend the time if the parties consented after the reference had been entered. The Supreme Court concluded that the award made within the extended time, based on mutual consent during arbitration, was valid. 2. Vagueness and Uncertainty of the Arbitration Agreement: The second ground for superseding the reference was the alleged vagueness and uncertainty of the arbitration agreement. The agreement dated February 5, 1958, was between Hari Krishna Wattal and Vaikunth Nath Pandya, partners in Wattal & Co. The agreement aimed to resolve disputes regarding amounts debited to Pandya and his sons and the correctness of the business accounts. The Supreme Court reviewed the agreement and found it clear and specific. The agreement included four clauses detailing the Arbitrator's responsibilities, such as determining amounts due, allowing examination of accounts, addressing other grievances, and determining payable amounts considering all sums due. The Court noted that the Arbitrator had called for claims and replies, allowed account inspections, and provided opportunities for both parties to present their arguments. There were no complaints about vagueness or uncertainty during the arbitration process. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's view that the agreement was vague and uncertain. The agreement was specific to the business of Wattal & Co., and any examination of related accounts, such as those of Kailash Carpet Co., was necessary for verifying entries in Wattal & Co.'s books. The clause allowing the Arbitrator to hear other grievances was interpreted in the context of disputes related to Wattal & Co.'s business. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the two grounds on which the High Court superseded the reference were not substantiated. The award was valid as it was made within the extended time agreed upon by mutual consent, and the arbitration agreement was neither vague nor uncertain. The case was remanded to the High Court to address other points not previously dealt with, and the appellant was awarded costs from the respondents.
|
