9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch Circle, P.W.D.(B R) Br. Faridabad, as Arbitrator for settlement of certain disputes between the parties pertaining to the works of construction of Houses in the Housing Board Colony at Sonepat. On receipt of the references, the Arbitrator entered thereupon and fixed 6th May, 1997 as the date for hearing the parties in the arbitration proceedings, on which date the Contractor attended the proceedings whereas the Executive Engineer, who was representing the Board, absented himself. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 13th May, 1997, while the Executive Engineer made a prayer for adjournment for filing the written reply, the Contractor attended the proceedings and filed documents and his counsel almost concluded the argument. The matter was, however, adjourned to 8th June, 1997. In the meantime, on 2nd June, 1997, Shri R.K. Jain, Superintending Engineer, A.D.B., Branch Circle, P.W.D. (B R) Branch, Faridabad, who was the Arbitrator, was transferred and posted as Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No.1, Union Territory Chandigarh, but he continued with the arbitration proceedings in spite of his transfer. On the next date of hearing, i.e., on 8th June, 1997, the Contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... representing the Board not only attended the arbitration proceedings with his counsel even after transfer of the Arbitrator, Shri R.K. Jain, but also consciously participated therein by filing affidavit in support of claims of the Board, adduced evidence and counsel appearing on behalf of the Board argued the matter, the Board would be deemed to have acquiesced to the continuance of the Arbitrator, Shri R.K. Jain, with the arbitration proceedings and making of the awards even after his transfer and after the awards having gone against the Board, it was not open to it to challenge the same on the ground that the arbitration proceedings were continued and concluded by Shri R.K. Jain after he ceased to be the Superintending Engineer, ADB Branch Circle, PWD(B R) Branch, Faridabad in view of the fact that the Arbitrator was not appointed by name but by designation. On the other hand, Shri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, submitted that as the appointment of Arbitrator was by designation, the Arbitrator could not have continued with the arbitration proceedings and given the awards after his transfer and the same could have been continued from that stage an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y his conduct had no objection to the order revoking the authority of the Arbitrators. Therefore, by acquiescence such a party was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the Umpire by filing an objection to the award. Similarly, in the case of Chowdhri Murtaza Hossin v. Mussumat Bibi Bachunnissa, 3 I.A. 209, which is a decision of the Privy Council and referred to in the case of N. Chellappan (Supra) with approval, it has been laid down that a party having a clear knowledge of the circumstances on which he might have founded an objection to the Arbitrators proceedings to make their award, did submit to the proceeding going on; that he allowed the Arbitrators to deal with the case as it stood before them, taking his chance of the decision being more or less favourable to himself; and that it is too late for him, after the award has been made, and on the application to file the award, to insist on his objection to the filing of the award. In the case of Prasun Roy vs. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority Anr., (1987) 4 SCC 217, on an application made under Section 20 of the Act, the Court appointed another Arbitrator in place of the arbitrator named in the arbitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was filed under Section 30 of the Act to the award on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award after the expiry of prescribed period of four months in the absence of any order of extension. On these facts, this Court laid down that time to be fixed for making an award is initially one of agreement between the parties to the agreement, but if no time has been specified by the parties in the arbitration agreement, then the award must be given within four months as prescribed in Section 3 read with clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act as time can be extended by the court and not by the parties at any stage inasmuch as since the Arbitrator is injuncted to give an award beyond the prescribed period of four months unless the same is extended by the Court, he had no jurisdiction to make an award after the expiry of specified time in the absence of any order of extension and in view of this the award made beyond time is ipso facto invalid, the same having been prohibited by law, and parties are not estopped by their conduct from challenging the same on the ground that it was made beyond time, merely because they participated in the proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
