9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to arbitration award based on the validity of the arbitration agreement and the capacity of one party to enter into a contract in a different name. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the arbitration award on two grounds. First, it was argued that Victory Jute Mills, the respondent, was not a legal entity, rendering any contract with them void. The petitioner contended that under the Companies Act, a company can only enter into contracts in its registered name. However, the court cited precedents such as H.E. Randall Ltd. v. British & American Shoe Co. and Pearks, Gunston and Tee Ltd. v. Thompson Talmey & Co. to establish that a company can own and operate a business under a different name, as long as it discloses itself as the proprietor. The court held that the respondent company could be the proprietor of Victory Jute Mills, and thus, the contention of the petitioner failed. Secondly, the petitioner argued that the award was perverse as the arbitrator did not have evidence of delivery orders. However, the court emphasized that the assessment of evidence falls within the arbitrators' jurisdiction, and the absence of delivery orders could not be a ground for setting aside the award. The respondent's counsel also pointed out that the issue of delivery orders was addressed during the arbitration proceedings, and it was not a valid reason to challenge the award. The court rejected both contentions raised by the petitioner, emphasizing that challenging the validity of the contract or the award is a legal right and cannot be estopped. The court relied on the decision in Khardah Co. v. Raymon & Co. (India) Private Ltd. to support this stance. Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, upholding the validity and binding nature of the arbitration agreement and the award.
|
