9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Court of Arbitration. 2. Opportunity to reply to the respondent's written statement. 3. Right to cross-examine the respondent's representative. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Court of Arbitration: The applicant argued that the Court of Arbitration was not properly constituted as it violated the consent order remitting the previous Award. The consent order mandated a newly constituted Court consisting of different persons from those who made the previous Award. The applicant contended that the reconstitution of the Court after one Arbitrator expressed his inability to serve was improper. The Court dismissed this objection on three grounds: - The consent order remitting the Award was made under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which allows the Court to remit the Award to the Arbitrators or umpire for reconsideration. Thus, the order should be construed as remitting the Award to the Bengal Chamber of Commerce according to the contract of the parties. - The Arbitration Agreement between the parties remained operative even after the order to remit the Award, as the reference to arbitration still existed. - The consent order did not impose any terms that the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry would not be applicable. The rules permitted the reconstitution of a Court if an Arbitrator was unwilling to act. Hence, the reconstitution was valid and legal. 2. Opportunity to Reply to the Respondent's Written Statement: The applicant claimed that the respondent was allowed to file a written statement on 3-1-1955, but the applicant was not given an opportunity to reply. The Court found this objection to be a misconception. The purported written statement was actually a typed list of points of argument, not a formal written statement of the case. Rule 11 of the Rules of the Tribunal of Arbitration of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce requires parties to submit written statements of their respective cases, which are then exchanged between the parties. The typed list of points was not the respondent's case but a summary of arguments already presented in the statements and counter-statements. The Arbitrators did not require a written reply to this list as it contained nothing new. The Court held that there was no misconduct on the part of the Arbitrators in not allowing a written reply to the typed list of points. The applicant had ample opportunities to answer the points in the statements and counter-statements. Therefore, the second objection was overruled. 3. Right to Cross-Examine the Respondent's Representative: The applicant's representative was denied the right to cross-examine the respondent's representative on 3-1-1955. The Arbitrators reviewed the seven pages of typed questions the applicant's representative intended to ask and found many questions irrelevant or already covered by the written submissions. The Court emphasized that arbitration procedures agreed upon by the parties, including the rules of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce, must prevail over general principles of natural justice. The rules did not provide an unqualified right to cross-examine. The Arbitrators had the discretion to allow or disallow cross-examination based on relevance and necessity. The Court analyzed specific questions proposed for cross-examination and found them to be arguments rather than factual inquiries. The refusal to allow these questions was not misconduct as they were irrelevant and unnecessary. The Court concluded that there was no legal misconduct by the Arbitrators in refusing the cross-examination. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the applicant's prayer to set aside the Award, holding that the Award was not invalid or void. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including all reserved costs.
|
