1949 (5) TMI 19 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the extension of time for the arbitration award.
2. Representation of the widow in the arbitration proceedings.
3. Allegations of misconduct by the arbitrator.
4. Whether the award was binding on the widow.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Extension of Time for the Arbitration Award:
The primary contention was whether the extensions of time for making the award were valid. The appellant argued that the extensions were validly made in accordance with the reference paper, which allowed the arbitrator to extend time by giving notice to the parties. The respondents contended that the extensions were not valid as they did not comply with the requirement of giving notice to all parties, including the widow. The High Court held that the extensions were not valid as the arbitrator failed to give proper notice to all parties, including the widow, and thus the award was void as it was made beyond the permissible time. The Privy Council concurred with the High Court's finding that the extensions were not valid due to the lack of notice to the widow, rendering the award void.

2. Representation of the Widow in the Arbitration Proceedings:
The widow was not made a party to the arbitration proceedings, and her sons represented themselves as the sole heirs of Kunjalal. The appellant argued that the sons sufficiently represented the widow's interest. However, the High Court found that the arbitrator and the parties were unaware of the widow's status as an heir due to the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937. The Privy Council agreed, stating that the widow's interest was distinct and potentially conflicting with her sons' interests, and she had a right to be heard. The failure to give her notice invalidated the award concerning her share.

3. Allegations of Misconduct by the Arbitrator:
The respondents alleged misconduct by the arbitrator, including partiality and failure to maintain proper records. The trial Judge and the High Court found no evidence of misconduct or partiality. The Privy Council did not find it necessary to delve into this issue further as the award was already deemed void due to procedural irregularities regarding the extension of time and the widow's representation.

4. Whether the Award was Binding on the Widow:
The widow contended that the award was not binding on her as she was not a party to the arbitration proceedings and was not given an opportunity to present her views. The High Court upheld this contention, stating that the widow's interest was not represented, and thus the award could not bind her. The Privy Council affirmed this view, emphasizing that the widow had an absolute right to be notified and heard in the arbitration proceedings. The award was therefore not binding on her.

Conclusion:
The Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the arbitration award on the grounds that the extensions of time were not validly made and the widow was not properly represented in the proceedings. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the award was declared void and not binding on the widow.