9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision of the board is an award capable of being filed in Court under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 2. Whether the award is illegal due to the changing composition of the board of directors. 3. Whether the award is invalid because it was not signed by all the members of the board who made it. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the decision of the board is an award capable of being filed in Court under Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act: The contracts between the parties were subject to the rules and by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., specifically by-law No. 38, which provides for arbitration by two disinterested persons and, if they disagree, an umpire. The award of the arbitrators or umpire is final and binding, subject to a right of appeal to the board within ten days. The petitioner argued that the award of the board of directors in appeal is not within the Indian Arbitration Act and cannot be filed as it is not an award by the arbitrators or the umpire. The respondents contended that the proceedings and the award are in accordance with the articles of association and by-laws of the Association and are valid and binding on the petitioner. The court held that the final decision of the domestic tribunal agreed upon under the submission would be the award, which could be filed under the Act. The court referred to various precedents, including Haji Abdulla v. Stamp and Austrian Lloyd Steamship Company v. Gresham Life Assurance Society, to support the broad interpretation of "submission" and the validity of awards made by appeal committees or boards under similar arbitration schemes. 2. Whether the award is illegal due to the changing composition of the board of directors: The petitioner argued that the award was illegal because it was made by persons some of whom were not present at the earlier hearings, and some who were present at the earlier hearings had not joined in the making of the award. The respondents contended that the practice of the board of directors hearing appeals at meetings with different members present was well known to the petitioner and acquiesced by him. The court examined the evidence and found that the composition of the board changed from time to time during the appeal hearings, which violated the principle that all arbitrators must act together and each must act in the making of the award. The court referred to several precedents, including Morgan v. Boult and Re Plews and Middleton, which established that every judicial act by multiple arbitrators must be completed in the presence of all. The court concluded that the changing composition of the board was contrary to natural justice and set aside the award. 3. Whether the award is invalid because it was not signed by all the members of the board who made it: The petitioner argued that the award was not signed by all the members of the board who made it, but only by the chairman, which violated Section 11 of the Indian Arbitration Act requiring the award to be signed by all arbitrators or the umpire. The court acknowledged that the award should have been signed by all the members of the board who joined in making it, but considered this omission a mere irregularity capable of being rectified. However, given the conclusion on the second issue, the court did not find it necessary to remit the award for proper signing. Conclusion: The court set aside the award on the grounds that the changing composition of the board during the appeal hearings violated the principles of natural justice. The petition was made absolute with costs, and the security was discharged.
|
