Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 1974 (11) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1974 (11) TMI 92 - SC - Companies LawWhether the umpire as sole arbitrator had jurisdiction to enter upon the reference and pass the award? Whether the direction in the award to return the security deposit of ₹ 1,81,000 to the appellant can be said to be a matter arising, out of the second contract and referred to arbitration, under point 2(a) or point 2(d) of the points of reference? Held that:- As already said, paragraph 5 of the order in O.P. 11 of 1972 leaves no room for doubt that it was a consent order. The Board made no endeavour to have that order vacated by filing a review, if the statement in that order that it was passed on the basis of consent proceeded from a mistake of the court. On the other hand, we find that the Board participated in the proceedings before the umpire without any demur to his jurisdiction. The only inference from this conduct on the part of the Board is that it had not objection to the order revoking the authority of the arbitrators. Therefore, by acquiescence the Board was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the umpire. As it was contended for the Board that point 2(a) of the reference related only to the sum still payable for the work done under the second contract and therefore the return of the security amount would not be covered by point 2(a). And, as regards point 2(d), the contention of the, Board was that it related to the claims of the Board against the respondent in respect of or under the agreement. The Board, therefore, contended that the matter was not referred to the arbitrators either under point 2(a) or 2(d). The High Court did not express any final opinion on this question - Allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court
|