9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether an arbitrator has the power to dismiss a claim for default of appearance and subsequently set aside the ex parte award? 2. Whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to decide a case ex parte in the absence of any statutory power? 3. Whether the arbitrator becomes functus officio after passing an award, and if so, can entertain an application to set aside the award and restore the case for hearing? Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved a dispute where the arbitrator dismissed the claim due to the absence of the Bank's representative during the hearing. The Bank later applied to set aside the ex parte award. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator had no power to entertain such an application after passing the award. The respondents argued that the arbitrator is obligated to decide the claim on its merits, even in the absence of the parties. Reference was made to a Full Bench decision regarding the power of restoration by an arbitrator. The Judge opined that the power to dismiss and restore are distinct and that the arbitrator's action in setting aside the ex parte award was justified to allow the claimant to prove the claim against the petitioner. Issue 2: The petitioner argued that in the absence of statutory power, the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to decide a case ex parte. Reference was made to a Full Bench decision from the Madras High Court regarding the obligation of the Appellate Tribunal to decide cases on their merits. The Judge agreed with the legal position presented but clarified that in arbitration, if the claimant fails to appear and present evidence, the arbitrator can dismiss the claim unless inclined to grant an adjournment. The Judge upheld the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the claim under Section 70(3) of the Act. Issue 3: The petitioner contended that the arbitrator became functus officio after passing the award and could not entertain an application to set aside the award. The respondents argued that the arbitrator had the power to decide ex parte based on specific rules. The Judge agreed with the petitioner's counsel, stating that the arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte award. Reference was made to a decision by Gopalan Nambiyar, J. in a similar case under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. The Judge concluded that the arbitrator's decision to set aside the award and allow the claimant to prove the claim was justified, and the petitioner's attempt to quash the order was dismissed. In conclusion, the Judge found no merit in the petitioner's claim to quash the order setting aside the ex parte award, emphasizing that the arbitrator's action was aimed at ensuring a fair adjudication of the claim. The Judge dismissed the original petition, highlighting that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in favor of a party seeking to evade liability without due adjudication.
|
