9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Court to accept the award, Interpretation of Clause 5 regarding arbitration, Authority of the arbitrator to proceed alone. Jurisdiction of the Court to accept the award: The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to accept the award, arguing that since the cause of action arose at Kurla, where the land and lease were located, the Bombay High Court had no jurisdiction. However, the Court held that jurisdiction is not limited to where the cause of action arises, but extends to where the subject matter of the reference can be decided. The Court cited the Indian Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Code to support its ruling that the Court had jurisdiction in this case, rejecting the petitioners' contention. Interpretation of Clause 5 regarding arbitration: The petitioners contended that Clause 5 did not refer to arbitration, but only to valuation, citing precedents where similar provisions were deemed as valuation rather than arbitration. The Court analyzed the clause in detail, considering the parties' intentions and the nature of the decision-making process outlined in the clause. While acknowledging the potential for a judicial inquiry in certain circumstances, the Court ultimately agreed with the petitioners' argument that the clause did not amount to arbitration, leading to the award being set aside. Authority of the arbitrator to proceed alone: The third objection raised by the petitioners was regarding the authority of the arbitrator, Mr. Kamtekar, to proceed alone in valuing the structures without the appointment of a pancha by the petitioners. The Court scrutinized the language of Clause 5, emphasizing the requirement for a sur-pancha to be appointed jointly by both parties. The Court concluded that the absence of a sur-pancha invalidated Mr. Kamtekar's actions, as the agreement did not authorize a unilateral valuation by one party. This objection was upheld, leading to the setting aside of the award. The Court also ordered the respondent to pay a portion of the petitioners' costs due to their partial success in the proceedings. In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay set aside the award made by Mr. Kamtekar, ruling in favor of the petitioners on the interpretation of Clause 5 and the authority of the arbitrator to proceed alone. The judgment delved into the nuances of jurisdiction, arbitration, and the specific language of the lease agreement to reach a comprehensive decision.
|
