9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (1) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed the right of the Society to recover this money and the matter was ultimately referred to arbitration. The arbitrator gave an ex-parte award in favour of the Society for recovery of ₹ 978/- on 30th of November, 1954. Objections preferred against this award were upheld by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nawanshahr, on 18th of December, 1959. It was held by the Court that the arbitrator acted with undue haste and failed to observe elementary principles of justice in giving his award without full opportunity being given to the person concerned to place his case before him. The arbitrator, it appears, had not recorded any reasons why he was proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner and in fact there was no ground for taking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdiction, the respondent Society is precluded from taking any further action on the same cause of action. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench authority of Bachawat and Malick JJ. in Nalini Mohan Choudhuri v. Malda Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. . A.I.R 1957 Cal. 23., where it was held that a valid award made by an arbitrator on reference under section 86 operates to extinguish and merge the claims and disputes referred to arbitration and is final and binding upon the parties. On the making of the award the arbitrator is functus officio with regard to the disputes referred and has no jurisdiction to entertain a second reference and to make a second award in respect of the identical disputes. The second award made on a second refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enactment. Section 37 of the Act states that all the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall apply to arbitrations as they apply to proceedings in Court. Thus, the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act do not apply to arbitrations other than those conducted under the Indian Arbitration Act. A Division Bench authority of the Bombay High Court (Shah and Gokhale JJ.) in Savitra Khanda Boradi v. Nagar Agricultural Sale and Purchase Co-operative Society Ltd., Ahmednagar . A.I.R 1957 Bom. 178., has been cited in support of this proposition. It was observed by the Bombay High Court in this case that it cannot, therefore, be said that in terms the provisions of the Limitation Act prevent an arbitrator from entertaining a claim whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
